MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902751791 · doi:10.1152/jn.00439.2018

Ipsilateral finger representations in the sensorimotor cortex are driven by active movement processes, not passive sensory input

2018· article· en· W2902751791 on OpenAlexafffund
Eva Berlot, George Prichard, Jill X. O’Reilly, Naveed Ejaz, Jörn Diedrichsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsSensory systemPsychologyNeurosciencePremotor cortexLateralization of brain functionCortex (anatomy)AnatomyMedicineDorsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hand and finger movements are mostly controlled through crossed corticospinal projections from the contralateral hemisphere. During unimanual movements, activity in the contralateral hemisphere is increased while the ipsilateral hemisphere is suppressed below resting baseline. Despite this suppression, unimanual movements can be decoded from ipsilateral activity alone. This indicates that ipsilateral activity patterns represent parameters of ongoing movement, but the origin and functional relevance of these representations is unclear. In this study, we asked whether ipsilateral representations are caused by active movement or whether they are driven by sensory input. Participants alternated between performing single finger presses and having fingers passively stimulated while we recorded brain activity using high-field (7T) functional imaging. We contrasted active and passive finger representations in sensorimotor areas of ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres. Finger representations in the contralateral hemisphere were equally strong under passive and active conditions, highlighting the importance of sensory information in feedback control. In contrast, ipsilateral finger representations in the sensorimotor cortex were stronger during active presses. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of finger representations differed between hemispheres: the contralateral hemisphere showed the strongest finger representations in Brodmann areas 3a and 3b, whereas the ipsilateral hemisphere exhibited stronger representations in premotor and parietal areas. Altogether, our results suggest that finger representations in the two hemispheres have different origins: contralateral representations are driven by both active movement and sensory stimulation, whereas ipsilateral representations are mainly engaged during active movement. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Movements of the human body are mostly controlled by contralateral cortical regions. The function of ipsilateral activity during movements remains elusive. Using high-field neuroimaging, we investigated how human contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres represent active and passive finger presses. We found that representations in contralateral sensorimotor cortex are equally strong during both conditions. Ipsilateral representations were mostly present during active movement, suggesting that sensorimotor areas do not receive direct sensory input from the ipsilateral hand.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations69
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207