Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30804540›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

The visual geometry of a tool modulates generalization during adaptation.

Mohsen Sadeghi, Hannah R Sheahan, James N Ingram, Daniel M Wolpert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohsen SadeghiDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK. ms2145@alumni.cam.ac.uk.
Hannah R SheahanDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.
James N IngramDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.
Daniel M WolpertDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2011-2790

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (Wellcome) WT097803MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge about a tool's dynamics can be acquired from the visual configuration of the tool and through physical interaction. Here, we examine how visual information affects the generalization of dynamic learning during tool use. Subjects rotated a virtual hammer-like object while we varied the object dynamics separately for two rotational directions. This allowed us to quantify the coupling of adaptation between the directions, that is, how adaptation transferred from one direction to the other. Two groups experienced the same dynamics of the object. For one group, the object's visual configuration was displayed, while for the other, the visual display was uninformative as to the dynamics. We fit a range of context-dependent state-space models to the data, comparing different forms of coupling. We found that when the object's visual configuration was explicitly provided, there was substantial coupling, such that 31% of learning in one direction transferred to the other. In contrast, when the visual configuration was ambiguous, despite experiencing the same dynamics, the coupling was reduced to 12%. Our results suggest that generalization of dynamic learning of a tool relies, not only on its dynamic behaviour, but also on the visual configuration with which the dynamics is associated.

Indexed as

LearningVirtual RealityVisual PerceptionAlgorithmsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansRobotics

Identifiers

PMID30804540
PMCPMC6389992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.