Cortical motor and somatosensory representation: effect of cerebral lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Changes in cortical representation in patients with cerebral lesions may alter the correlation between cortical anatomy and function. This is of potential clinical significance when the extent of cortical resection is based on surface anatomical landmarks. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with supratentorial lesions were studied. Nineteen harbored noncentral lesions (no involvement of pre- or postcentral gyrus), whereas 32 had central lesions. Control studies consisted of stimulation of the hand contralateral to the unaffected hemisphere. Positron emission tomography activation studies were performed using the [15O]H2O tracer. Somatosensory stimulation of the hand or foot was performed using a mechanical vibrator. Motor activation consisted of hand clenching or foot tapping. The t-statistic volumes were generated from images showing the mean change in regional cerebral blood flow, and coregistered with a T1-weighted magnetic resonance image. At the threshold selected, exclusive contralateral primary sensorimotor cortex activation was elicited in 100% of the control studies. A different pattern of cortical activation was associated with central lesions in 35 (78%) of 45 patients, which occurred significantly more often than with noncentral lesions (eight [31%] of 26 patients). The most common difference in the pattern of activation with central lesions was activation of cortical regions outside the central area (including the supplementary sensorimotor area and the secondary somatosensory cortex). No sensorimotor activation was observed in gyri adjacent to the pre- or postcentral gyrus. CONCLUSIONS: Central lesions are more frequently associated with altered patterns in activation than lesions in noncentral locations. Characteristic patterns include activation of secondary sensorimotor areas. The absence of activation in gyri adjacent to the sensorimotor strip has clinical significance for the planning of resections in the central area.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".