The Effects of Aging on Sensory Feedback Utilization During the Planning of Upper Limb Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work on sensorimotor integration for movement planning has mainly focused on visual environments and targets. Further, age-related adaptations to sensorimotor integration for movement planning are seldom explored. In the current dissertation, four experiments were conducted to investigate sensorimotor processes occurring during movement planning to targets of varying sensory modality, in both younger and older adults. They were asked to perform upper limb reaching movements to various target cues in the absence of visual feedback, and reaction time was evaluated as the main outcome variable. The goal of the first experiment was to investigate if target modality modulated movement planning time, and if these effects were different across age groups. The results showed longer reaction times for movements planned to somatosensory targets versus visual or bimodal targets, and these longer reaction times were significantly longer for older adults than for younger adults. The goals of the second and third experiments were to test for any contributing effects known to be affected by aging, such as sensory acuity or movement planning strategy. The results showed that older adults did not appear to have acuity deficits, nor did they plan their movements differently than younger adults to the various sensory cues. The goal of the fourth experiment was to implement a somatosensory perturbation to further investigate sensorimotor processes when planning movements to somatosensory targets. The results showed that somatosensory perturbations to the effector limb caused even further elongation of reaction times, and this effect was greater in older than younger adults. Overall, the current work provides a further look into the age-related differences in somatomotor integration processes, when planning movements to somatosensory targets. It was hypothesized that sensorimotor transformations may be responsible for the delays in movement planning time, as older adults may be mapping all cues into a visual reference frame, regardless of the presence of visual inputs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".