MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contrasting Modulatory Effects from the Dorsal and Ventral Premotor Cortex on Primary Motor Cortex Outputs

2017· article· en· W2620017515 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandrine L. Côté, Adjia Hamadjida, Stephan Quessy, Numa Dancause

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeurosciencePremotor cortexPsychologyStimulus (psychology)Motor cortexInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPrimary motor cortexStimulationMicrostimulationDorsumTranscranial magnetic stimulationBiologyAnatomyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dorsal and ventral premotor cortices (PMd and PMv, respectively) each take part in unique aspects for the planning and execution of hand movements. These premotor areas are components of complex anatomical networks that include the primary motor cortex (M1) of both hemispheres. One way that PMd and PMv could play distinct roles in hand movements is by modulating the outputs of M1 differently. However, patterns of effects from PMd and PMv on the outputs of M1 have not been compared systematically. Our goals were to study how PMd within the same (i.e., ipsilateral or iPMd) and in the opposite hemisphere (i.e., contralateral or cPMd) can shape M1 outputs and then compare these effects with those induced by PMv. We used paired-pulse protocols with intracortical microstimulation techniques in sedated female cebus monkeys while recording EMG signals from intrinsic hand and forearm muscles. A conditioning stimulus was delivered in iPMd or cPMd concurrently or before a test stimulus in M1. The patterns of modulatory effects from PMd were compared with those from PMv collected in the same animals. Striking differences were revealed. Conditioning stimulation in iPMd induced more frequent and powerful inhibitory effects on M1 outputs compared with iPMv. In the opposite hemisphere, cPMd conditioning induced more frequent and powerful facilitatory effects than cPMv. These contrasting patterns of modulatory effects could allow PMd and PMv to play distinct functions for the control of hand movements and predispose them to undertake different, perhaps somewhat opposite, roles in motor recovery after brain injury. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The dorsal and ventral premotor cortices (PMd and PMv, respectively) are two specialized areas involved in the control of hand movements in primates. One way that PMd and PMv could participate in hand movements is by modulating or shaping the primary motor cortex (M1) outputs to hand muscles. Here, we studied the patterns of modulation from PMd within the same and in the opposite hemisphere on the outputs of M1 and compared them with those from PMv. We found that PMd and PMv have strikingly different effects on M1 outputs. These contrasting patterns of modulation provide a substrate that may allow PMd and PMv to carry distinct functions for the preparation and execution of hand movements and for recovery after brain injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207