Planning Ahead: Object-Directed Sequential Actions Decoded from Human Frontoparietal and Occipitotemporal Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object-manipulation tasks (e.g., drinking from a cup) typically involve sequencing together a series of distinct motor acts (e.g., reaching toward, grasping, lifting, and transporting the cup) in order to accomplish some overarching goal (e.g., quenching thirst). Although several studies in humans have investigated the neural mechanisms supporting the planning of visually guided movements directed toward objects (such as reaching or pointing), only a handful have examined how manipulatory sequences of actions-those that occur after an object has been grasped-are planned and represented in the brain. Here, using event-related functional MRI and pattern decoding methods, we investigated the neural basis of real-object manipulation using a delayed-movement task in which participants first prepared and then executed different object-directed action sequences that varied either in their complexity or final spatial goals. Consistent with previous reports of preparatory brain activity in non-human primates, we found that activity patterns in several frontoparietal areas reliably predicted entire action sequences in advance of movement. Notably, we found that similar sequence-related information could also be decoded from pre-movement signals in object- and body-selective occipitotemporal cortex (OTC). These findings suggest that both frontoparietal and occipitotemporal circuits are engaged in transforming object-related information into complex, goal-directed movements.
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".