Comparison of Neural Responses in Primary Motor Cortex to Transient and Continuous Loads During Posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined whether neurons in primary motor cortex (M1) exhibit similar responses to transient and continuous loads applied during posture. Rapid responses to whole-limb perturbations were examined by transiently applying (300 ms) flexor and extensor torques to the shoulder and/or elbow during postural maintenance. Over half of M1 neurons responded to these transient loads within 80 ms and many responded within 20-40 ms. These rapid responses exhibited a broad continuum of modulation patterns across load directions. At one extreme, neurons exhibited reciprocal increases and decreases in activity for opposing loads. At the other extreme, neurons (particularly those with onset times of 20-40 ms) displayed relatively uniform increases in activity for all loads. Activity of proximal arm muscles displayed a narrower distribution of modulation patterns characterized by broadly tuned excitation combined with little or no reciprocal inhibition. Both neurons and muscles showed a directional preference for whole-limb flexor and whole-limb extensor torques (flexor at one joint and extensor at the other). Most neurons with rapid responses also showed steady-state responses to continuous loads, although these responses generally displayed reciprocal increases and decreases in activity for opposing loads. Importantly, the preferred-torque directions were quantitatively similar across tasks. For example, a neuron with a maximal rapid response to a transient elbow flexor torque tended to exhibit a maximal steady-state response to a continuous elbow flexor torque. Activity of proximal arm muscles also showed this preservation of directional tuning. These results illustrate that M1 neurons respond rapidly to transient multijoint loads and their patterns of activity share some, but not all, features related to continuous multijoint loads applied during posture.
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".