Structure of Plasticity in Human Sensory and Motor Networks Due to Perceptual Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we begin to acquire a new motor skill, we face the dual challenge of determining and refining the somatosensory goals of our movements and establishing the best motor commands to achieve our ends. The two typically proceed in parallel, and accordingly it is unclear how much of skill acquisition is a reflection of changes in sensory systems and how much reflects changes in the brain's motor areas. Here we have intentionally separated perceptual and motor learning in time so that we can assess functional changes to human sensory and motor networks as a result of perceptual learning. Our subjects underwent fMRI scans of the resting brain before and after a somatosensory discrimination task. We identified changes in functional connectivity that were due to the effects of perceptual learning on movement. For this purpose, we used a neural model of the transmission of sensory signals from perceptual decision making through to motor action. We used this model in combination with a partial correlation technique to parcel out those changes in connectivity observed in motor systems that could be attributed to activity in sensory brain regions. We found that, after removing effects that are linearly correlated with somatosensory activity, perceptual learning results in changes to frontal motor areas that are related to the effects of this training on motor behavior and learning. This suggests that perceptual learning produces changes to frontal motor areas of the brain and may thus contribute directly to 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".