AUTHORS: George Mankaryous
DATE: 2026-08-29
ABSTRACT:
Human anatomy provides scientific information about the physical structures, organization, relationships, and movement capacities of the human body. Because observable human actions are physically expressed through anatomical structures, anatomical information can contribute to identifying possible actions before those actions occur. This whitepaper examines the relationship between anatomical structure and prospective observable action. It proposes that bones, joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, body proportions, posture, and structural limitations establish physical conditions that constrain the range of actions available to a person at a particular moment. Anatomical information is therefore potentially predictive when prediction is defined as identifying physically possible future actions rather than determining with certainty which action a person will perform. The analysis finds that anatomy provides its strongest predictive information by defining structural capacities and excluding physically incompatible movements. Predictive accuracy can be improved when anatomical information is combined with current posture, ongoing movement, biomechanics, physiology, neural activity, sensory information, environmental conditions, and behavioral observations. The principal conclusion is that human anatomy provides scientifically meaningful information that can help predict possible observable actions before they occur, while prediction of a specific future action generally requires evidence beyond anatomy alone.
- INTRODUCTION
Human anatomy is the scientific study of the structures and physical organization of the human body. It describes structures such as bones, joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, blood vessels, organs, tissues, and the spatial relationships connecting these components. Anatomical knowledge traditionally provides information about what structures exist, where they are located, how they are organized, and how they relate to surrounding structures. This structural knowledge also has implications for understanding human movement because observable bodily actions must occur through the physical structures of the body.
Observable human actions include walking, standing, sitting, reaching, grasping, lifting, turning, looking, speaking, writing, running, jumping, and manipulating objects. Each action requires particular anatomical structures and particular changes in the physical configuration of those structures. Walking requires coordinated structures of the pelvis, lower limbs, trunk, nervous system, and supporting tissues. Grasping requires the anatomical organization of the hand, wrist, forearm, muscles, tendons, joints, and nerves. Turning the head depends upon structures of the skull, cervical vertebral column, joints, muscles, ligaments, and nervous system. Speaking involves respiratory structures, the larynx, oral structures, tongue, muscles, peripheral nerves, and central nervous structures.
Anatomy therefore establishes physical conditions within which observable action occurs. Before a particular movement begins, the structures that make that movement possible already exist. The organization of a joint constrains its possible movement. The dimensions of a limb constrain its reach. The arrangement of muscles determines which skeletal structures those muscles can mechanically influence. Ligaments and connective tissues impose structural limitations. The current configuration of the body further determines which movements are immediately available.
This relationship supports the proposition examined in this whitepaper: human anatomy provides information that can help predict possible observable actions before they occur. Prediction in this context does not necessarily mean identifying a future action with certainty. Instead, anatomical prediction concerns determining which movements and actions are physically possible, constrained, or incompatible with the body’s structure and current configuration.
This distinction between possibility and certainty is fundamental. A person may possess the anatomical capacity to walk, sit, turn, raise an arm, or remain stationary. Knowledge of anatomy can establish that these actions belong to the person’s physical possibility space under appropriate conditions. Anatomy alone does not necessarily determine which of those actions the person will select. Prediction of actual behavior requires additional information concerning the current state and activity of the organism and its environment.
- PROBLEM STATEMENT
The principal scientific problem is determining how information about physical structure can contribute to predictions concerning observable actions that have not yet occurred. Anatomy is principally concerned with structure, whereas prediction concerns future states. Establishing a relationship between these concepts requires an understanding of how physical structure constrains physical change.
The existence of a joint provides a simple example. A joint does not merely connect anatomical structures. Its geometry, surfaces, capsule, ligaments, muscles, and surrounding tissues influence which movements can occur and the ranges within which those movements are possible. Knowledge of the structure therefore provides information about future physical states even before movement begins. Some configurations are accessible through the joint, while others are structurally unavailable or severely constrained.
The same principle operates at larger scales. Limb dimensions affect reachable space. The arrangement of the skeleton affects posture and locomotion. Muscle attachments establish mechanical relationships between contractile structures and bones. Tendons transmit muscular forces. Nervous structures establish physical pathways through which motor commands and sensory information can travel. The body consequently contains structural information relevant to possible future movement.
The difficulty is that physical possibility is not equivalent to behavioral probability. A person standing in a room may be physically capable of walking forward, stepping backward, sitting, turning, raising an arm, moving the head, or remaining stationary. Anatomy can help establish that these actions are possible, but structural information alone generally cannot determine which action will occur next.
A further problem is individual variation. Human anatomy follows common organizational patterns, but individuals differ in height, body proportions, joint geometry, range of motion, muscle architecture, development, age, previous injury, disease, and other structural characteristics. General anatomical knowledge can therefore establish broad possibilities, while individualized anatomical information can produce more specific constraints.
Prediction also depends upon time. Anatomy can be examined as a relatively stable structural system, while action unfolds dynamically. A person continuously changes anatomical configuration during movement. The set of actions immediately possible from one configuration may differ substantially from the set available after the body has moved into another configuration. A predictive anatomical model must therefore consider both structure and current configuration.
The central problem is consequently how to use anatomical information to constrain the range of possible future observable actions without incorrectly treating anatomical structure as a complete determinant of future behavior.
- PROPOSED SOLUTION
A systematic solution is to treat human anatomy as a source of structural constraints defining an action possibility space. Under this approach, anatomy does not independently select the future action. Instead, anatomical information helps determine which future physical actions remain possible given the structures and conditions being examined.
The first component of the approach is anatomical identification. Relevant structures must be identified according to the action under consideration. For upper-limb movement, this may include the shoulder girdle, humerus, radius, ulna, wrist, hand, associated joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments, and nerves. For locomotion, relevant structures include the pelvis, femur, patella, tibia, fibula, foot, lower-limb joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments, and associated nervous structures.
The second component is structural constraint analysis. Anatomical structures impose limits upon movement. Joint geometry restricts the directions and ranges through which body segments can move. Ligaments resist particular forms of displacement. Muscles act according to their physical attachments and orientations. Bone dimensions establish segment lengths. These properties eliminate physical configurations that cannot ordinarily be reached from a specified anatomical state.
The third component is analysis of current bodily configuration. Knowing the general anatomy of a person establishes a broad set of possible movements, but knowing the person’s current posture provides additional predictive information. The positions of the feet, legs, trunk, head, arms, and hands affect which movements can occur immediately. Actions requiring substantially different configurations must generally pass through intermediate physical states.
The fourth component is temporal analysis. Observable action can be understood as a sequence of changing anatomical configurations. A person beginning in one bodily configuration transitions through intermediate configurations until another observable state is reached. Anatomical constraints restrict which transitions can physically occur. Prediction can therefore operate by estimating which subsequent configurations are reachable from the current configuration.
The fifth component is environmental constraint analysis. The body does not move independently of its surroundings. Floors provide support, objects create obstacles or targets, surfaces constrain movement, and spatial distances affect whether an object can be reached. Anatomical possibilities must therefore be evaluated in relation to environmental geometry when the purpose is to predict real observable actions.
The final component is evidence integration. Anatomy can establish physical possibilities, but stronger prediction of actual action requires additional evidence. Current movement provides kinematic information. Biomechanics provides information concerning forces. Physiology provides information concerning functional biological states. Neuroscience provides information concerning motor control. Sensory information describes interactions between the organism and its environment. Behavioral observations provide evidence concerning developing action patterns. Combining these sources can progressively reduce uncertainty about what will occur.
- IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation begins by describing the relevant anatomy and the body’s current configuration. Consider a person standing near an object. Anatomical information can establish the dimensions and organization of the person’s upper limb, the location of the shoulder, the configuration of the elbow, the position of the wrist and hand, and the approximate movement ranges available through relevant joints. This information can be compared with the location of the object.
If the object is located within the person’s physically reachable region, reaching may be identified as a possible action. If the object is beyond the available reach of the upper limb from the current posture, reaching without additional body movement may be insufficient. The person may need to lean, rotate the trunk, step toward the object, or otherwise change anatomical configuration. Structural information therefore allows some requirements of the possible future action to be identified before the completed action occurs.
Walking provides another example. A standing person possesses anatomical structures capable of supporting locomotion under ordinary functional conditions. The pelvis, hips, knees, ankles, feet, muscles, tendons, ligaments, and nervous structures create the physical system through which walking can occur. Current posture can further indicate which immediate transitions are physically available. However, the anatomical capacity for walking does not establish that walking will actually occur. The individual could remain stationary, turn, sit, or perform another available action.
Upper-limb movement provides a particularly useful implementation because joint structure clearly limits movement possibilities. If the position of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand is known, anatomical ranges can constrain the set of positions the hand can occupy immediately afterward. As movement begins, new observations can update the prediction. The possible future positions become increasingly constrained by the direction and velocity of ongoing movement.
The same principle can be applied computationally. A digital representation of the human body can contain body-segment dimensions, joint locations, joint movement limits, current posture, and environmental geometry. A computational system can use this information to generate physically reachable future configurations and reject configurations that violate structural constraints.
Such a system would not necessarily produce the conclusion that a person will perform one specific action. Instead, it could determine that several actions remain physically possible while others are inconsistent with the anatomical and environmental conditions. Additional dynamic information could then be used to rank the remaining possibilities.
Medical and rehabilitation applications provide another implementation. Anatomical information about an injury can alter predictions concerning movement possibilities. Damage to a joint, muscle, tendon, nerve, or skeletal structure may restrict the actions available to a patient. Clinical examination can identify these limitations, and movement assessment can determine how the person compensates for them. Prospective knowledge of movement capacity can then contribute to rehabilitation planning.
Sports science also applies similar reasoning. An athlete’s body proportions, joint ranges, muscular organization, posture, and movement configuration influence the physical possibilities available during performance. When combined with kinematic and biomechanical measurements, anatomical information can contribute to predictions concerning subsequent movement.
Ergonomics provides another example. The dimensions and movement capacities of the human body can be compared with the physical arrangement of workplaces, controls, tools, and equipment. Anatomical information can help determine whether particular reaching, lifting, sitting, or manipulating actions are physically feasible before they are performed.
The implementation principle remains consistent across these examples. Anatomical information establishes structural possibilities and constraints. Current configuration narrows those possibilities. Dynamic information further reduces uncertainty. Environmental information determines which structurally possible actions are compatible with surrounding conditions.
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of this framework demonstrates that human anatomy contains prospective information about observable action. The reason is straightforward: future bodily movements cannot occur independently of the physical structures through which they must be produced. Structural organization therefore places limits on future physical states.
The strongest independent predictive contribution of anatomy concerns physical possibility. If a movement is incompatible with the structure or available range of a joint, anatomical knowledge can constrain or exclude that movement. If a target lies beyond the reach permitted by body dimensions and current posture, anatomy can establish that additional movement would be required. If a structural injury prevents or severely limits a movement, the corresponding action possibility space changes.
This means that anatomical prediction frequently works by reducing possibilities rather than identifying a single future event. The initial number of conceivable actions may be large. Structural information removes physically incompatible actions. Current posture removes additional possibilities. Environmental conditions further restrict the available set. Dynamic movement information can then make particular outcomes increasingly probable.
Prediction also becomes more informative as the time horizon becomes shorter. General anatomical information has limited ability to determine what a person might do several minutes into the future because many intermediate states and decisions can occur. At very short time intervals, however, the body’s present configuration substantially constrains its immediately reachable configurations. A limb cannot ordinarily move from one position to a distant unrelated position without traversing intermediate states. This continuity gives structural and kinematic information prospective value.
An important distinction nevertheless remains between capability, probability, and intention. Anatomical evidence can contribute strongly to questions of physical capability. It can contribute indirectly to estimates of probability when combined with current-state information. It does not, by itself, establish psychological intention.
For example, demonstrating that a person’s hand can reach an object establishes a physical possibility under the specified conditions. Observing the hand moving toward the object provides additional behavioral and kinematic evidence. Determining why the person is reaching or what the person intends to do with the object requires a different level of evidence.
This distinction strengthens rather than weakens the proposed model because it establishes the proper scientific scope of anatomical prediction. Anatomy need not determine intention in order to provide useful predictive information. Its contribution is the definition and restriction of physical possibilities.
The framework also demonstrates why anatomy becomes more powerful when combined with other disciplines. Kinematics describes the body’s changing position. Biomechanics describes forces and mechanical relationships. Physiology describes biological function. Neuroscience investigates neural control and sensory processing. Psychology investigates cognition and behavior. Environmental measurement establishes external constraints and opportunities. Each discipline contributes information that cannot be obtained completely from the others.
Human action can therefore be analyzed at several complementary levels. Anatomy establishes the physical architecture. Biomechanics and physiology explain aspects of physical operation. Neuroscience contributes information concerning control. Behavioral observation establishes what movement is developing or has occurred. Psychology may contribute evidence concerning cognition, decision-making, and intention.
The principal finding is consequently that anatomical structure possesses predictive relevance because structure constrains change. The relationship does not require the assumption that future human behavior is completely determined by anatomy. It requires only the scientifically established principle that physical actions must remain compatible with the physical organization and capabilities of the body performing them.
- CONCLUSION
Human anatomy provides information that can help predict possible observable actions before they occur. This predictive capacity arises because bodily action is physically embodied. Bones, joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, connective tissues, and other anatomical structures establish the physical architecture through which movement must occur.
Anatomical organization determines structural capacities and limitations. Joint structures influence available movement. Body proportions influence reach. Muscle and tendon organization establishes mechanical relationships. Ligaments and connective tissues constrain displacement. Current posture determines the anatomical configuration from which subsequent movement must begin.
These characteristics allow anatomical information to reduce the range of possible future bodily states. In this sense, anatomy can provide prospective information.
The central distinction is between predicting possible action and determining actual future behavior. Anatomy can establish that an action is physically possible, constrained, or incompatible with specified structural conditions. It does not necessarily establish that the person will choose or intend that action.
Prediction becomes stronger when anatomical information is combined with current posture, movement trajectory, biomechanics, physiology, neural information, sensory information, environmental conditions, and behavioral observations. These additional sources progressively constrain the range of future possibilities.
The resulting scientific principle is that anatomical structure constrains physical possibility, and physical possibility constrains observable action. Because those constraints exist before an action is completed, anatomical information can contribute to prediction before the observable action occurs.
Human anatomy should therefore be understood not only as a description of bodily structure but also as a source of structural information relevant to prospective analysis of human movement. Its predictive contribution is strongest when used to identify possible and impossible physical actions and when integrated with dynamic evidence to evaluate which of the remaining possibilities is developing.
REFERENCES
[1] Standring, S., ed., “Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice,” Elsevier, 42nd Edition, 2020.
[2] Moore, K. L., Dalley, A. F., and Agur, A. M. R., “Clinically Oriented Anatomy,” Wolters Kluwer, 9th Edition, 2022.
[3] Drake, R. L., Vogl, A. W., and Mitchell, A. W. M., “Gray’s Anatomy for Students,” Elsevier, 5th Edition, 2023.
[4] Neumann, D. A., “Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System: Foundations for Rehabilitation,” Elsevier, 3rd Edition, 2017.
[5] Winter, D. A., “Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement,” Wiley, 4th Edition, 2009.
[6] Hall, S. J., “Basic Biomechanics,” McGraw Hill, 9th Edition, 2021.
[7] Shumway-Cook, A., and Woollacott, M. H., “Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice,” Wolters Kluwer, 6th Edition, 2022.
[8] Kandel, E. R., Koester, J. D., Mack, S. H., and Siegelbaum, S. A., eds., “Principles of Neural Science,” McGraw Hill, 6th Edition, 2021.
[9] Rosenbaum, D. A., “Human Motor Control,” Academic Press, 2nd Edition, 2009.
[10] Latash, M. L., “Fundamentals of Motor Control,” Academic Press, 2012.
[11] OpenStax, “Anatomy and Physiology 2e,” OpenStax, Rice University, 2022.
[12] Bernstein, N. A., “The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements,” Pergamon Press, 1967.