Task‐relevance and temporal synchrony between tactile and visual stimuli modulates cortical activity and motor performance during sensory‐guided movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory-guided movements require the analysis and integration of task-relevant sensory inputs from multiple modalities. This article sought to: (1) assess effects of intermodal temporal synchrony upon modulation of primary somatosensory cortex (S1) during continuous sensorimotor transformations, (2) identify cortical areas sensitive to temporal synchrony, and (3) provide further insight into the reduction of S1 activity during continuous vibrotactile tracking previously observed by our group (Meehan and Staines 2007: Brain Res 1138:148-158). Functional MRI was acquired while participants received simultaneous bimodal (visuospatial/vibrotactile) stimulation and continuously tracked random changes in one modality, by applying graded force to a force-sensing resistor. Effects of intermodal synchrony were investigated, unbeknownst to the participants, by varying temporal synchrony so that sensorimotor transformations dictated by the distracter modality either conflicted (low synchrony) or supplemented (high synchrony) those of the target modality. Temporal synchrony differentially influenced tracking performance dependent upon tracking modality. Physiologically, synchrony did not influence S1 activation; however, the insula and superior temporal gyrus were influenced regardless of tracking modality. The left temporal-parietal junction demonstrated increased activation during high synchrony specific to vibrotactile tracking. The superior parietal lobe and superior temporal gyrus demonstrated increased activation during low synchrony specific to visuospatial tracking. As previously reported, vibrotactile tracking resulted in decreased S1 activation relative to when it was task-irrelevant. We conclude that while temporal synchrony is represented at higher levels than S1, interactions between inter- and intramodal mechanisms determines sensory processing at the level of S1.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".