Occlusion of LTP-Like Plasticity in Human Primary Motor Cortex by Action Observation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive observation of motor actions induces cortical activity in the primary motor cortex (M1) of the onlooker, which could potentially contribute to motor learning. While recent studies report modulation of motor performance following action observation, the neurophysiological mechanism supporting these behavioral changes remains to be specifically defined. Here, we assessed whether the observation of a repetitive thumb movement--similarly to active motor practice--would inhibit subsequent long-term potentiation-like (LTP) plasticity induced by paired-associative stimulation (PAS). Before undergoing PAS, participants were asked to either 1) perform abductions of the right thumb as fast as possible; 2) passively observe someone else perform thumb abductions; or 3) passively observe a moving dot mimicking thumb movements. Motor evoked potentials (MEP) were used to assess cortical excitability before and after motor practice (or observation) and at two time points following PAS. Results show that, similarly to participants in the motor practice group, individuals observing repeated motor actions showed marked inhibition of PAS-induced LTP, while the "moving dot" group displayed the expected increase in MEP amplitude, despite differences in baseline excitability. Interestingly, LTP occlusion in the action-observation group was present even if no increase in cortical excitability or movement speed was observed following observation. These results suggest that mere observation of repeated hand actions is sufficient to induce LTP, despite the absence of motor learning.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".