The sense of movement elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation in humans is due to sensory feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been claimed that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the human motor cortex can produce a sense of movement of the contralateral hand, even when the hand is paralysed. The sense of movement was equated with a 'corollary discharge', a nulling mechanism originally posited for maintaining constancy of the visual field during eye movements. Our experiments were designed to test whether the sensation that accompanies TMS-evoked finger movements is generated centrally or whether it arises as a result of sensory feedback. Matched twitches of the left and right fingers were elicited either by bilateral electrical stimulation of forearm extensor muscles, or by a combination of TMS of left motor cortex (eliciting twitches of the right forefinger), and electrical stimulation of the left forearm muscles (eliciting twitches of the left forefinger). The time interval between stimuli activating left and right twitches was varied randomly (range +/- 90 ms) from trial to trial. Subjects reported whether they sensed that the left or the right movement occurred first, or if they could detect no difference. The left and right movements evoked by bilateral electrical stimulation of muscles were sensed as near simultaneous when there was zero delay between them. When TMS was applied in conjunction with unilateral muscle stimulation, the TMS-evoked movement was felt, on average, 20 ms after the movement evoked by muscle stimulation. Similar results were obtained when the skin under the cathodal electrodes was anaesthetized. Since the TMS-evoked movements were felt later rather than earlier than the electrically evoked movements, the results do not support the idea that the sensation of movement was elicited centrally by TMS. Rather, they favour sensory feedback as the source of the sense of movement. The earlier perception of electrically evoked versus TMS-evoked movements was probably due to earlier sensory responses in the periphery rather than a suppression of the excitability of somatosensory cortex.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".