EEG evidence for the presence of an action observation–execution matching system in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the adult human brain, passive observation of actions performed by others activates some of the same cortical areas that are involved in the execution of actions, thereby contributing to action recognition. This mechanism appears to occur through activation of a population of action-coding cells known as mirror neurons (MN). In the adult motor cortex, performing actions and observing human movement reduces the magnitude of the mu (8-13 Hz) rhythm, possibly reflecting MN system activity. Despite the wealth of information available regarding the adult MN system, little is known about its existence in children. Here, we used EEG to probe mu rhythm modulation in 15 children during observation and execution of hand actions. Our data show that mu rhythm attenuation occurs in children under 11 years old during observation of hand movements. Similarly to what has been reported in adults, observation of goal/object-orientated movement produces greater modulation of the mu rhythm than intransitive movement. These data confirm the existence of an observation-execution matching system in the immature human brain and may be of clinical value in the understanding of neurodevelopmental disorders associated with a faulty MN system, such as autism spectrum disorder.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".