Spatial localization of cutaneous temporal order judgments involves the posterior parietal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little is known about how specific brain regions are involved with cutaneous temporal order judgments (TOJs). The processes underlying judgments in this modality are of special interest because the body surfaces to which such stimuli are delivered can be moved to different locations in space with respect to the midline of the body and may be encoded in multiple reference frames. Where and how the integration of these signals occurs is currently unknown. In the present experiment, we addressed this issue by using single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at various intervals to disrupt processing in the right or left posterior parietal cortex (PPC) during a TOJ task with cutaneous vibrotactile stimuli applied to the index finger of each hand. The results demonstrated that when vibrotactile stimuli were delivered to the index finger contralateral to the site of TMS first, there was a significant increase in TOJ errors that were not present when the stimuli were delivered to the ipsilateral finger first. This was true for both the right and left PPC and more apparent when TMS was delivered prior to rather than during finger stimulation. Control experiments using sham TMS indicated that this increase in errors was not due to non-specific effects of the TMS drawing attention away from the contralateral side of space. To further investigate the spatial encoding of the cutaneously-encoded events, we had subjects cross his or her arms. We then observed an increase in errors ipsilateral to the side of stimulation. Taken together, these results demonstrate that both the right and left PPC contribute to the processing underlying cutaneous TOJ tasks and furthermore that this information is not encoded in a haptic reference frame but rather with respect to the body.
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".