Primary motor and sensory cortical areas communicate via spatiotemporally coordinated networks at multiple frequencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skilled movements rely on sensory information to shape optimal motor responses, for which the sensory and motor cortical areas are critical. How these areas interact to mediate sensorimotor integration is largely unknown. Here, we measure intercortical coherence between the orofacial motor (MIo) and somatosensory (SIo) areas of cortex as monkeys learn to generate tongue-protrusive force. We report that coherence between MIo and SIo is reciprocal and that neuroplastic changes in coherence gradually emerge over a few days. These functional networks of coherent spiking and local field potentials exhibit frequency-specific spatiotemporal properties. During force generation, theta coherence (2-6 Hz) is prominent and exhibited by numerous paired signals; before or after force generation, coherence is evident in alpha (6-13 Hz), beta (15-30 Hz), and gamma (30-50 Hz) bands, but the functional networks are smaller and weaker. Unlike coherence in the higher frequency bands, the distribution of the phase at peak theta coherence is bimodal with peaks near 0° and ±180°, suggesting that communication between somatosensory and motor areas is coordinated temporally by the phase of theta coherence. Time-sensitive sensorimotor integration and plasticity may rely on coherence of local and large-scale functional networks for cortical processes to operate at multiple temporal and spatial scales.
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".