Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading an action verb elicits the retrieval of its associated body movements as well as its typical goal-the outcome to which it is directed. Two fMRI experiments are reported in which retrieval of goal attributes was isolated from retrieval of motoric ones by contrasting actions that are either done intentionally (e.g., drink) and thus have associated goal information or by accident (e.g., hiccup). Orthogonally, the actions also varied in their motoricity (e.g., drink vs. imagine). Across both levels of motoricity, goal-directedness influenced the activity of a portion of left posterior inferior parietal lobe (pIPL). These effects were not explicable by the grammatical properties, imageability, or amount of body movement associated with these different types of verbs. In contrast, motoricity (across levels of goal-directedness) activated primarily the left middle temporal gyrus. Furthermore, pIPL was found to be distinct from the portion of left parietal lobe implicated in theory of mind, as localized in the same participants. This is consistent with the observation that pIPL contains many functionally distinct subregions and that some of these support conceptual knowledge. The present findings illustrate that, in particular, the pIPL is involved in representing attributes of intentional actions, likely their typical goals, but not their associated body movements. This result serves to describe an attribute-selective semantic subsystem for at least one type of nonmotor aspect of action knowledge.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".