MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889279961 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203206

Motor and sensory disturbances induced by sensorimotor conflicts during passive and active movements in healthy participants

2018· article· en· W2889279961 on OpenAlexafffund
Clémentine Brun, Martin Gagné, Catherine Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesUniversité Laval
KeywordsSensory systemProprioceptionEfference copyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSensory cueMovement (music)Visual feedbackNeuroscienceMedicineComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensorimotor conflict induces both sensory and motor disturbances, but the specific factors playing a role in conflict-induced disturbances are still misunderstood. For example, we still do not know the role played by motor intention (vs. a purely visuo-proprioceptive conflict) or the influence of specific types of incongruent visual feedback. The objective of this study was threefold: 1- to compare the effect of passive and active movement during sensorimotor conflict on sensory disturbances measured with a questionnaire; 2- to compare the effect of three incongruent visual feedback conditions on sensory and motor (mediolateral drift and movement amplitude) disturbances; 3- to test whether conflict-induced sensory and motor disturbances were stable over time. 20 healthy participants realized active or passive cyclic upper limb movements while viewing either congruent or incongruent visual feedback about their movement using a robotized exoskeleton combined with 2D virtual reality interface. First, results showed that in condition of conflict, participants reported higher sensory disturbances during active movements compared to passive movements (p = 0.034), suggesting that the efference copy reinforces the conflict between vision and proprioception. Second, the three conditions of incongruence in the active condition induced similar sensory (all p>0.45) and motor disturbances (medio-lateral drift: all p>0.59 and amplitude: all p>0.25), suggesting that conflict induced motor disturbances could be related more to the observation of another movement rather than to a detection of conflict between motor intention and sensory feedback. Finally, both sensory and motor disturbances were stable over time (all ICCs between 0.76 and 0.87), demonstrating low variability within participants. Overall, our results suggest that the efference copy is more involved in sensory disturbances than in motor disturbances, suggesting that they might rely on independent processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207