MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Specificity of Human Parietal Saccade and Reach Regions during Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

2010· article· en· W1979748947 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSaccadeIntraparietal sulcusTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeurosciencePosterior parietal cortexMacaqueStimulationAngular gyrusParietal lobeSupramarginal gyrusPsychologyCortex (anatomy)Eye movementFunctional magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-unit recordings in macaque monkeys have identified effector-specific regions in posterior parietal cortex (PPC), but functional neuroimaging in the human has yielded controversial results. Here we used on-line repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to determine saccade and reach specificity in human PPC. A short train of three TMS pulses (separated by an interval of 100 ms) was delivered to superior parieto-occipital cortex (SPOC), a region over the midposterior intraparietal sulcus (mIPS), and a site close to caudal IPS situated over the angular gyrus (AG) during a brief memory interval while subjects planned either a saccade or reach with the left or right hand. Behavioral measures then were compared to controls without rTMS. Stimulation of mIPS and AG produced similar patterns: increased end-point variability for reaches and decreased saccade accuracy for contralateral targets. In contrast, stimulation of SPOC deviated reach end points toward visual fixation and had no effect on saccades. Contralateral-limb specificity was highest for AG and lowest for SPOC. Visual feedback of the hand negated rTMS-induced disruptions of the reach plan for mIPS and AG, but not SPOC. These results suggest that human SPOC is specialized for encoding retinally peripheral reach goals, whereas more anterior-lateral regions (mIPS and AG) along the IPS possess overlapping maps for saccade and reach planning and are more closely involved in motor details (i.e., planning the reach vector for a specific hand). This work provides the first causal evidence for functional specificity of these parietal regions in healthy humans.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it