Asymmetry in corticomotor facilitation revealed in right-handers in the context of haptic discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we asked whether asymmetries related to handedness in right-handers (n=10) and left-handers (n=10) could influence hemispheric motor facilitation when the preferred or less-preferred hand is engaged in haptic sensing. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to assess corticomotor excitability when young participants performed a precision grip under two conditions, i.e., with or without a haptic sensing component. In the grip condition participants were required to grasp a 5-mm thick plate between thumb and index fingers, whereas in the haptic condition they performed the same action but were also required to make judgements about the plate's thickness, i.e., either thin (5 mm) or thick (10 mm). Analysis of task-related variations in motor evoked potentials (MEP) amplitude recorded in hand muscles revealed a significant task×hand/hemisphere interaction only in the group of right-handers when the left hand/right hemisphere was engaged in haptic sensing as opposed to simply gripping. Collectively, these results are congruent with other TMS reports describing a greater degree of hemispheric asymmetry in right-handers, who are typically more strongly lateralised than left-handers. Our results with regard to a rightward hemispheric asymmetry for MEP facilitation with haptic sensing are also congruent with the predominant role ascribed to the right sensorimotor cortex in the processing of proprioceptive information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".