Disruption of M1 Activity during Performance Plateau Impairs Consolidation of Motor Memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upon exposure to a new sensorimotor relationship, motor behaviors iteratively change early in adaptation but eventually stabilize as adaptation proceeds. Behavioral work suggests that motor memory consolidation is initiated upon the attainment of asymptotic levels of performance. Separate lines of evidence point to a critical role of the primary motor cortex (M1) in consolidation. However, a causal relationship between M1 activity during asymptote and consolidation has yet to be demonstrated. The present study investigated this issue in male and female participants using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to interfere with postmovement activity in M1 in two behavioral phases of a ramp-and-hold visuomotor adaptation paradigm. TMS was either provided after each trial of the ramp phase of adaptation when a gradual increase in the visuomotor rotation caused movements to be changing, or after each trial of the hold phase of adaptation when the rotation was held constant and movements tended to stabilize. Consolidation was assessed by measuring performance on the same task 24 h later. Results revealed that TMS did not influence adaptation to the new visuomotor relationship in either condition. Critically, however, TMS disruption of M1 activity selectively impaired consolidation of motor memories when it was provided during the hold phase of adaptation. This effect did not take place when TMS was delivered over adjacent dorsal premotor cortex or when motor behaviors in late adaptation were prevented from plateauing. Together, these data suggest that the impaired consolidation stemmed from interference with mechanisms of repetition-dependent plasticity in M1. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTThe present work demonstrates that TMS disruption of M1 activity impairs the consolidation of motor memories selectively when performance reaches asymptotic levels during sensorimotor adaptation. These findings provide evidence for a causal contribution of M1 to motor memory formation when movements tend to repeat, likely through mechanisms of repetition-dependent plasticity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".