MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7071446672

Task-dependent modulation of joint stiffness

2010· dissertation· en· W7071446672 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsStiffnessJoint stiffnessTorqueReflexJoint (building)Control theory (sociology)Stretch reflexPosition (finance)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joint stiffness defines the dynamic relationship between the position of the joint and the torque acting about it; hence it is important in the control of movements and posture. Joint stiffness consists of two components: intrinsic stiffness, which is due to the viscoelastic properties of the joint, muscle, and connective tissue and the inertia of the limb; reflex stiffness, which arises due to the torque produced by the stretch reflex response. During some tasks, visual, vestibular and somatosensory mechanisms may also contribute to the estimated joint stiffness. This thesis explores how people modulate their joint stiffness to perform different tasks. Numerous studies have investigated whether subjects can modulate their reflex stiffness voluntarily but have produced contradictory results; a possible reason for this uncertainty is the lack of a proper feedback to provide to subjects. This thesis presents a novel algorithm that can estimate intrinsic and reflex stiffness in real-time. Experimental results are then presented that show that using the estimates generated by the real-time algorithm as feedback, subjects could control reflex stiffness independently of intrinsic stiffness. In another set of experiments, subjects were given a task that would be performed optimally by modulating their joint stiffness. However, subjects produced voluntary torques based on visual feedback, rather than modulating their joint stiffness. These voluntary torques were found to be correlated to the velocity of the visual feedback. Thus, though mechanisms exist for subjects to modulate their intrinsic and reflex stiffness independently and voluntarily, subjects did not do so. Rather they preferred to use visual feedback to generate the voluntary torques needed to perform the task. Based on the findings of this thesis we conclude that subjects can modulate their joint stiffness in numerous ways—by altering intrinsic stiffness, reflex stiffness or voluntary components. However, i

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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