MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054098425 · doi:10.1177/1073858405278015

In Search of the Motor Engram: Motor Map Plasticity as a Mechanism for Encoding Motor Experience

2005· review· en· W2054098425 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐H. Monfils, Erik J. Plautz, Jeffrey A. Kleim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroscientist · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceMotor learningPrimary motor cortexMotor cortexPsychologyMotor systemNeuroplasticityMotor skillEngramSupplementary motor areaFunctional magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor skill acquisition occurs through modification and organization of muscle synergies into effective movement sequences. The learning process is reflected neurophysiologically as a reorganization of movement representations within the primary motor cortex, suggesting that the motor map is a motor engram. However, the specific neural mechanisms underlying map plasticity are unknown. Here the authors review evidence that 1) motor map topography reflects the capacity for skilled movement, 2) motor skill learning induces reorganization of motor maps in a manner that reflects the kinematics of acquired skilled movement, 3) map plasticity is supported by a reorganization of cortical microcircuitry involving changes in synaptic efficacy, and 4) motor map integrity and topography are influenced by various neurochemical signals that coordinate changes in cortical circuitry to encode motor experience. Finally, the role of motor map plasticity in recovery of motor function after brain damage is discussed.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations314
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe NeuroscientistSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207