ArticleExperimental brain research2026
Same geometry, different dynamics: what uncontrolled manifold (UCM) analysis misses about motor control.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncontrolled Manifold (UCM) analysis separates the variability of multi-joint motion into a part that affects the task goal (task-relevant) and a part that does not (task-irrelevant), using the geometric relationship-the task Jacobian-between joint motion and task outcome. The resulting partition has been interpreted as evidence of neural control strategies that stabilize task goals while permitting flexibility in execution. UCM is conventionally reported as time-averaged variance indices, and this time-averaging step discards the temporal structure of movement variability. Using a three-joint planar reaching model, we generate variability with three temporal structures (periodic oscillation, white noise, and pink noise) matched in spatial covariance, and find that the time-averaged geometric indices-the ratio [Formula: see text] and the [Formula: see text]-transformed synergy index [Formula: see text]-remain statistically indistinguishable for white and pink noise, whereas temporal indices computed on the same trials (lag-1 autocorrelation, detrended-fluctuation scaling, spectral slope) show large effect sizes. This double dissociation confirms that time-averaged summaries remain blind to temporal correlations. The projection operation retains temporal information in the single-trial and time-resolved components, yet the meaning of that information for motor control remains open: the mapping from a temporal property of a projected series to a specific control process is itself unestablished, so applying time-series methods to the projections opens a fresh interpretive problem. UCM therefore identifies whether coordination is structured by task constraints while leaving the generating processes undetermined. Establishing this boundary is the contribution of the present work: geometric partitioning yields a spatial account of coordination whose temporal origins lie beyond the method and call for a dedicated dynamical theory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.