Selective Modulation of Early Visual Cortical Activity by Movement Intention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primate visual system contains myriad feedback projections from higher- to lower-order cortical areas, an architecture that has been implicated in the top-down modulation of early visual areas during working memory and attention. Here we tested the hypothesis that these feedback projections also modulate early visual cortical activity during the planning of visually guided actions. We show, across three separate human functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies involving object-directed movements, that information related to the motor effector to be used (i.e., limb, eye) and action goal to be performed (i.e., grasp, reach) can be selectively decoded-prior to movement-from the retinotopic representation of the target object(s) in early visual cortex. We also find that during the planning of sequential actions involving objects in two different spatial locations, that motor-related information can be decoded from both locations in retinotopic cortex. Together, these findings indicate that movement planning selectively modulates early visual cortical activity patterns in an effector-specific, target-centric, and task-dependent manner. These findings offer a neural account of how motor-relevant target features are enhanced during action planning and suggest a possible role for early visual cortex in instituting a sensorimotor estimate of the visual consequences of movement.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".