Delta band oscillations predict hand selection for reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current models emphasize that action selection is achieved by competitive interactions between co-existing motor plans afforded by target stimuli (Cisek and Kalaska 2010). We tested the hypothesis that action selection is influenced by the intrinsic excitability of the sensorimotor regions that encode those motor plans. We used a hand selection task in which subjects reached toward visual targets with the hand of their choice. We identified the target locations for which left and right hands were chosen equally often (see Oliveira et al., 2010), and then had subjects perform multiple trials toward these targets while recording electroencephalography (EEG). Data were binned according to the hand being selected. We measured delta band oscillations (2-4Hz) at electrodes overlaying the left and right primary motor cortices (M1), since excitability of neuronal ensembles fluctuates according to the phase of delta (Lakatos et al., 2008). Delta band inter-trial coherence at target onset was significantly greater over M1 contralateral to the selected hand than over ipsilateral M1 (p
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".