Experience-dependent Plasticity of Conceptual Representations in Human Sensory-Motor Areas
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
Concepts are composed of features related to different sensory and motor modalities such as vision, sound, and action. It is a matter of controversy whether conceptual features are represented in sensory-motor areas reflecting the specific learning experience during acquisition. In order to address this issue, we assessed the plasticity of conceptual representations by training human participants with novel objects under different training conditions. These objects were assigned to categories such that for one class of categories, the overall shape was diagnostic for category membership, whereas for the other class, a detail feature affording a particular action was diagnostic. During training, participants were asked to either make an action pantomime toward the detail feature of the novel object or point to it. In a categorization task at test, we assessed the neural correlates of the acquired conceptual representations by measuring electrical brain activity. Here, we show that the same object is differentially processed depending on the sensory-motor interactions during knowledge acquisition. Only in the pantomime group did we find early activation in frontal motor regions and later activation in occipito-parietal visual-motor regions. In the pointing training group, these effects were absent. These results show that action information contributes to conceptual processing depending on the specific learning experience. In line with modality-specific theories of conceptual memory, our study suggests that conceptual representations are established by the learning-based formation of cell assemblies in sensory-motor areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it