MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early non‐specific modulation of corticospinal excitability during action observation

2010· article· en· W2026445688 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Lepage, Sara Tremblay, Hugo Théoret

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationPsychologyMotor cortexNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPrimary motor cortexMirror neuronIndex fingerStimulationMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activity of the primary motor cortex (M1) during action observation is thought to reflect motor resonance. Here, we conducted three studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) of the first dorsal interosseus muscle (FDI) during action observation to determine: (i) the time course of M1 corticospinal excitability during the observation of a simple finger movement; (ii) the specificity of M1 modulation in terms of type of movement and muscle; and (iii) the relationship between M1 activity and measures of empathy and autistic traits. In a first study, we administered single-pulse TMS at 30-ms intervals during the observation of simple finger movements. Results showed enhanced corticospinal excitability occurring between 60 and 90 ms after movement onset. In a second experiment, TMS-induced MEPs were recorded from the FDI and abductor digiti minimi muscles while pulses were delivered 90 ms after movement onset during observation of simple finger movement and dot movement. Increased corticospinal excitability was restricted to finger movement and was present in both muscles. Finally, in an exploratory experiment, single-pulse TMS was administered at 30, 90 and 150 ms after movement onset, and participants were asked to complete the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Correlational analysis revealed a significant link between motor facilitation at 90 ms and the EQ and AQ scores. These results suggest that corticospinal excitability modulation seen at M1 during action observation is the result of a rapid and crude automatic process, which may be related to social functioning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations85
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207