Theta oscillations reflect a putative neural mechanism for human sensorimotor integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal theta oscillations (3-12 Hz) may reflect a mechanism for sensorimotor integration in rats (Bland BH. Prog Neurobiol 26: 1-54, 1986); however, it is unknown whether cortical theta activity underlies sensorimotor integration in humans. Rather, the mu rhythm (8-12 Hz) is typically found to desynchronize during movement. We measured oscillatory EEG activity for two conditions of an instructed delayed reaching paradigm. Conditions 1 and 2 were designed to differentially manipulate the contribution of the ventral visuomotor stream during the response initiation phase. We tested the hypothesis that theta activity would reflect changes in the relevant sensorimotor network: condition 2 engaged ventral stream mechanisms to a greater extent than condition 1. Theta oscillations were more prevalent during movement initiation and execution than during periods of stillness, consistent with a sensorimotor relevance for theta activity. Furthermore, theta activity was more prevalent at temporal sites in condition 2 than condition 1 during response initiation, suggesting that theta activity is present within the necessary sensorimotor network. Mu activity desynchronized more during condition 2 than condition 1, suggesting mu desynchronization is also specific to the sensorimotor network. In summary, cortical theta synchronization and mu desynchronization may represent broadly applicable rhythmic mechanisms for sensorimotor integration in the human brain.
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".