Visual feedback modulates functional connectivity between anterior intraparietal sulcus and ipsilateral motor cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mirror visual feedback (MVF) is used to improve functions of an impaired limb. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies suggest that the motor cortex (M1) ipsilateral to the moving hand is activated with MVF. The mechanisms underlying this feedback are not well understood. The purpose of this study is to determine if the anterior intraparietal sulcus (aIPS) mediates the activity of ipsilateral M1 during movement preparation with MVF. Five subjects participated in the study and were tested in 4 conditions: 1) rest; 2) mirror; 3) no-mirror; and 4) action observation (AO). In the mirror and no-mirror conditions, subjects gripped a force transducer with their right index finger and thumb after an auditory cue. TMS pulses were delivered through two coils placed on the right hemisphere separated by 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 ms; the first pulse over the aIPS (90% resting motor threshold) and the second pulse over the M1 (1 mV). Responses to the TMS were recorded from the resting left first dorsal interosseous muscle. aIPS-M1 ratios were facilitated in the mirror and AO conditions compared to rest at 2, 4 and 6 ms. Specifically, the motor-evoked potential ratios ( 1 means facilitation) for rest, mirror, no-mirror and AO conditions at 2 ms were: 0.78 ± 0.28, 1.07 ± 0.33, 0.97 ± 0.29 and 1.09 ± 0.17, respectively. The ratios at 4 ms were 1.20 ± 0.33, 0.81 ± 0.24, 0.91 ± 0.15 and 1.19 ± 0.41 in the mirror, rest, no-mirror and AO conditions. At 6 ms, the ratios were 1.17 ± 0.19, 0.88 ± 0.22, 1.19 ± 0.24, 1.29 ± 0.23 in the mirror, rest, no-mirror and AO conditions. These preliminary findings suggest that vision plays an important role in modulating aIPS-M1 interactions during movement preparation. Acknowledgments: This research project is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology (Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto).
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) | 0.001 | 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".