Cortical facilitation of proprioceptive inputs related to gravitational balance constraints during step preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown that the transmission of afferent inputs from the periphery to the somatosensory cortex is attenuated during the preparation of voluntary movements. In the present study, we tested whether sensory attenuation is also observed during the preparation of a voluntary step. It would appear dysfunctional to suppress somatosensory information, which is considered to be of the utmost importance for gait preparation. In this context, we predict that the somatosensory information is facilitated during gait preparation. To test this prediction, we recorded cortical somatosensory potentials (SEPs) evoked by bilateral lower limb vibration (i.e., proprioceptive inputs) during the preparation phase of a voluntary right-foot stepping movement (i.e., stepping condition). The subjects were also asked to remain still during and after the vibration as a control condition (i.e., static condition). The amplitude and timing of the early arrival of afferent inflow to the somatosensory cortices (i.e., P1-N1) were not significantly different between the static and stepping conditions. However, a large sustained negativity (i.e., late SEP) developed after the P1-N1 component, which was larger when subjects were preparing a step compared with standing. To determine whether this facilitation of proprioceptive inputs was related to gravitational equilibrium constraints, we performed the same experiment in microgravity. In the absence of equilibrium constraints, both the P1-N1 and late SEPs did not significantly differ between the static and stepping conditions. These observations provide neurophysiological evidence that the brain exerts a dynamic control over the transmission of the afferent signal according to their current relevance during movement preparation.
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".