MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7019172539

An examination of the effects of equilibrium on the control of goal-directed reaching in humans

2012· dissertation· en· W7019172539 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsMovement (music)TrajectoryTrunkElbowMotor controlTask (project management)Pelvis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goal-directed reaching movements executed from seated positions exhibit rapid, automatic corrections in response to a change in target position. In the standing posture, corrections in arm trajectory during reaching movements are accompanied by feedforward corrections in postural activity which create the dynamical conditions necessary for successful task execution. However, it is unknown how equilibrium constraints associated with standing as opposed to sitting, which has little or no equilibrium constraints, influence the neural processes underlying online corrections of goal-directed movements. This thesis aimed to address this question. Eight healthy adult subjects (3 males, 5 females) performed regular reach-to-point movements and an online arm correction task when seated and when standing. It was hypothesized that the increased equilibrium constraints during stance would influence the online control of goal-directed reaching, resulting in differences in focal movement endpoint kinematics. The focal reaching movement was described using spatiotemporal kinematics of the reaching hand. Whole-body kinematic analyses were also performed to compare the movement strategies utilized in each postural configuration. It was found that the postural configuration (seated vs. standing) in which the movements were executed generally did not affect focal movement parameters (velocity profile, movement time, time to correction, and peak velocity), despite resulting in different whole-body kinematic strategies (i.e. extent of elbow flexion-extension, shoulder adduction-abduction, trunk rotation, pelvis rotation, pelvis obliquity, and pelvis translation). These results highlight the efficacy of the neural processes underlying the end goal of arm reaching movements and their online control. The processes of control do not appear to be affected by the higher demands placed on the CNS required for the maintenance of postural equilibrium during stance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→