Spatial‐temporal dynamics of cortical activity underlying reaching and grasping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How humans understand the actions and intentions of others remains poorly understood. Here we report the results of a magnetoencephalography (MEG) experiment to determine the temporal dynamics and spatial distribution of brain regions activated during execution and observation of a reach to grasp motion using real world stimuli. We show that although both conditions activate similar brain areas, there are distinct differences in the timing, pattern and location of activation. Specifically, observation of motion revealed a right hemisphere dominance with activation involving a network of regions that include frontal, temporal and parietal areas. In addition, the latencies of activation showed a task specific pattern. During movement execution, the earliest activation was observed in the left premotor and somatosensory regions, followed closely by left primary motor and STG at the time of movement onset. During observation, there was a shift in the timing of activation with the earliest activity occurring in the right temporal region followed by activity in the left motor areas. Activity within these areas was also characterized by a shift to a lower frequency in comparison with action execution. These results add to the growing body of evidence indicating a complex interaction within a distributed network involving motor and nonmotor regions during observation of real actions.
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".