MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020791644 · doi:10.1152/jn.00819.2009

Response Competition in the Primary Motor Cortex: Corticospinal Excitability Reflects Response Replacement During Simple Decisions

2010· article· en· W2020791644 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Michelet, Gary H. Duncan, Paul Cisek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationPrimary motor cortexNeurosciencePsychologyMotor cortexStimulus (psychology)Evoked potentialMotor programStimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that, during decisions about actions, multiple options are initially specified in parallel and then gradually eliminated in a competition for overt execution. To further test this hypothesis, we studied the modulation of human corticospinal excitability during the reaction time of the Eriksen flanker task. In the task, subjects responded with finger flexion or extension to a central arrow while ignoring congruent or incongruent flanker arrows. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied over primary motor cortex (M1) at one of five different latencies after stimulus onset, and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured in the contralateral index finger. During the control (no flankers) and congruent conditions, MEP size in the agonist increased gradually over the course of reaction time, indicating an increase in corticospinal excitability. Conversely, when the same muscle acted as an antagonist, MEP size decreased, suggesting inhibition. Critically, in the incongruent condition, MEPs briefly increased in the muscle corresponding to an initial default response to the flanker arrows and were later replaced by MEPs corresponding to the correct response to the central arrow. Finally, we found that the gradually growing MEPs for the three conditions reached a constant maximum level just before movement initiation. We propose that this dynamic modulation in corticospinal excitability reflects the competition process, leading to the selection of one response and the rejection of the other. Our results suggest that response competition influences activity in primary motor cortex and that its timing directly influences motor output latency.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207