Interhemispheric Inhibition in Distal and Proximal Arm Representations in the Primary Motor Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interhemispheric inhibitory interactions (IHI) operate between homologous distal hand representations in primary motor cortex (M1). It is not known whether proximal arm representations exhibit comparable effects on their homologous counterparts. We studied IHI in different arm representations, targeting triceps brachii (TB, n = 13), first dorsal interosseous (FDI, n = 13), and biceps brachii (BB, n = 7) muscles in healthy volunteers. Transcranial magnetic stimulation test stimuli (TS) were delivered to M1 contralateral to the target muscle preceded 10 ms by a conditioning stimulus (CS) to the opposite M1 at 110-150% resting motor threshold (RMT). IHI was calculated as the ratio between motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes in conditioned relative to unconditioned trials. Mean RMTs were 38.9, 46.9, and 46.0% of stimulator output in FDI, TB, and BB muscles, respectively. IHI was 0.45 +/- 0.41 (FDI), 0.78 +/- 0.38 (TB), and 0.52 +/- 0.32 (BB, P < 0.01) when test MEP amplitudes were matched and 0.28 +/- 0.17 (FDI) and 0.85 +/- 0.31 (TB, P < 0.05) when TS intensities expressed as percentage RMT were matched. Significant IHI (P < 0.05) was identified with minimal CS intensities (expressed as percentage stimulator output) in the 30 s for FDI, 60 s for TB, and 40 s for BB. Additionally, a CS of roughly 120% RMT suppressed the test MEP but not a test H-reflex in BB, suggesting IHI observed in BB is likely mediated by a supraspinal mechanism. We conclude that IHI differs between different arm muscle representations, comparable between BB and FDI but lesser for TB. This finding suggests the amount of IHI between different arm representations does not strictly follow a proximal-to-distal gradient, but may be related to the role of each muscle in functional movement synergies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".