Localizing evoked cortical activity associated with balance reactions: does the anterior cingulate play a role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to correct balance disturbances is essential for the maintenance of upright stability. Although information about how the central nervous system controls balance reactions in humans remains limited, recent literature highlights a potentially important role for the cerebral cortex. The objective of this study was to determine the neural source of the well-reported balance-evoked N1 response. It was hypothesized that the N1 is associated with an "error-detection" event in response to the induced perturbation and therefore may be associated with activity within the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). The localized source of the N1 evoked by perturbations to standing balance was compared, within each participant, to the location of an error-related negativity (ERN) known to occur within the ACC while performing a flanker task. In contrast to the main hypotheses, the results revealed that the location of the N1 was not within the ACC. The mean Talairach coordinates for the ERN were (6.47, -4.41, 41.17) mm, corresponding to the cingulate gyrus [Brodmann area (BA) 24], as expected. However, coordinates for the N1 dipole were (5.74, -11.81, 53.73) mm, corresponding to the medial frontal gyrus (BA 6), specifically the supplementary motor area. This may suggest the N1 is linked to the planning and execution of elements of the evoked balance reactions rather than being associated with error or event detection. Alternatively, it is possible that the N1 is associated with variation in the cortical representation due to task-specific differences in the activation of a distributed network of error-related processing. Subsequent work should focus on disentangling these two possible explanations as they relate to the cortical processing linked to reactive balance control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".