Evidence for distinct brain networks in the control of rule-based motor behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reach guidance when the spatial location of the viewed target and hand movement are incongruent (i.e., decoupled) necessitates use of explicit cognitive rules (strategic control) or implicit recalibration of gaze and limb position (sensorimotor recalibration). In a patient with optic ataxia (OA) and bilateral superior parietal lobule damage, we recently demonstrated an increased reliance on strategic control when the patient performed a decoupled reach (Granek JA, Pisella L, Stemberger J, Vighetto A, Rossetti Y, Sergio LE. PLoS One 8: e86138, 2013). To more generally understand the fundamental mechanisms of decoupled visuomotor control and to more specifically test whether we could distinguish these two modes of movement control, we tested healthy participants in a cognitively demanding dual task. Participants continuously counted backward while simultaneously reaching toward horizontal (left or right) or diagonal (equivalent to top-left or top-right) targets with either veridical or rotated (90°) cursor feedback. By increasing the overall neural load and selectively compromising potentially overlapping neural circuits responsible for strategic control, the complex dual task served as a noninvasive means to disrupt the integration of a cognitive rule into a motor action. Complementary to our previous results observed in patients with optic ataxia, here our dual task led to greater performance deficits during movements that required an explicit rule, implying a selective disruption of strategic control in decoupled reaching. Our results suggest that distinct neural processing is required to control these different types of reaching because in considering the current results and previous patient results together, the two classes of movement could be differentiated depending on the type of interference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".