Functionally Specific Changes in Resting-State Sensorimotor Networks after Motor Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor learning changes the activity of cortical motor and subcortical areas of the brain, but does learning affect sensory systems as well? We examined in humans the effects of motor learning using fMRI measures of functional connectivity under resting conditions and found persistent changes in networks involving both motor and somatosensory areas of the brain. We developed a technique that allows us to distinguish changes in functional connectivity that can be attributed to motor learning from those that are related to perceptual changes that occur in conjunction with learning. Using this technique, we identified a new network in motor learning involving second somatosensory cortex, ventral premotor cortex, and supplementary motor cortex whose activation is specifically related to perceptual changes that occur in conjunction with motor learning. We also found changes in a network comprising cerebellar cortex, primary motor cortex, and dorsal premotor cortex that were linked to the motor aspects of learning. In each network, we observed highly reliable linear relationships between neuroplastic changes and behavioral measures of either motor learning or perceptual function. Motor learning thus results in functionally specific changes to distinct resting-state networks in the brain.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it