Vision without Proprioception Modulates Cortico-spinal Excitability during Hand Motor Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown a cortico-spinal facilitation during motor imagery. This facilitation effect is weaker when the actual hand posture is incompatible with the imagined movement. To determine whether the source of this interference effect arises from online proprioceptive information, we examined transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced motor-evoked potentials during motor imagery in the deafferented subject G.L. The patient and 7 control subjects were asked to close their eyes and imagine joining the tips of the thumb and the little finger while maintaining a hand posture compatible or incompatible with the imagined movement. Contrary to control subjects' performance, G.L.'s results show that the facilitation observed during motor imagery was independent of the hand posture. To examine how vision of the hand interacts with the imagery process, G.L. and control subjects performed the same task with the eyes open. Like control subjects, when G.L. looked at her hand, a greater facilitation was observed when her hand posture was compatible with the imagined movement than when it was incompatible. These results suggest that in the absence of proprioception, vision may facilitate or inhibit motor representations and support the idea that limb position in the brain is organized around multisensory representations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".