ArticleArXiv2026
Active Sensing Subserves Task-Level Control.
Article in ArXiv, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Active sensing is traditionally defined as the expenditure of energy, typically in the form of movement, for obtaining information. Here, we propose that the combination of reliance on adaptive sensors, the linkage between movement and sensing, and task-level control inevitably gives rise to the emergence of active sensing movements. In this way, active sensing is not driven by sensory goals, such as minimizing uncertainty about the state, but rather is necessary for task-level control. This hypothesis, that active sensing subserves control, is supported by both empirical data from organisms and mathematical theory. Interestingly, active sensing behaviors often occur in discrete epochs, interspersed with goal-oriented behavior. This suggests that animals switch between two behavioral modes with distinct control policies, an 'explore' mode in which animals produce dynamic movements to shape sensory feedback, and an 'exploit' mode in which animals produce slower compensatory movements that are directly related to achieving task goals. This strategy for feedback control that relies on adaptive sensors, active sensing, and mode switching is not commonly used in engineered systems despite being ubiquitous in biology. Engineered systems comprising state-of-the-art sensors, actuators, and mechanical designs can outperform animals with respect to "cost functions" such as maximum force generation, precision, and speed. Nevertheless, animals routinely achieve robust, graceful behaviors that are currently unmatched by engineered systems, suggesting that current control systems are insufficient. These insights, expressed in the language of control theory, may be critical for improving robotic sensing and control.
Identifiers
42238071PMC13229081What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.