Independent Early and Late Sensory Processes for Proprioceptive Integration When Planning a Step
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatosensory inputs to the cortex undergo an early and a later stage of processing which are characterized by an early and a late somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP). The early response is highly representative of the stimulus characteristics whereas the late response reflects a more integrative, task specific, stage of sensory processing. We hypothesized that the later processing stage is independent of the early processing stage. We tested the prediction that a reduction of the first volley of input to the cortex should not prevent the increase of the late SEP. Using the sensory interference phenomenon, we halved the amplitude of the early response to somatosensory input of the ankle joints (evoked by vibration) when participants either planned a step forward or remained still. Despite the initial cortical response to the vibration being massively decreased in both tasks, the late response was still enhanced during step planning. Source localization indicated the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) as the likely origin of the late response modulation. Overall these results support the dissociation between the processes underlying the early and late SEP. The later processing stage could involve both direct and indirect thalamic connections to PPC which bypass the postcentral somatosensory cortex.
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".