MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967186252 · doi:10.1152/jn.00163.2019

Motor cortex disruption delays motor processes but not deliberation about action choices

2019· article· en· W2967186252 on OpenAlexaff
Gérard Derosière, David Thura, Paul Cisek, Julie Duqué

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsCTBSDeliberationPsychologyNeuroscienceMotor cortexPrimary motor cortexAction (physics)StimulationTask (project management)Motor systemMotor areaCognitive psychologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decisions about actions typically involve a period of deliberation that ends with the commitment to a choice and the motor processes overtly expressing that choice. Previous studies have shown that neural activity in sensorimotor areas, including the primary motor cortex (M1), correlates with deliberation features during action selection. However, the causal contribution of these areas to the decision process remains unclear. Here, we investigated whether M1 determines choice commitment or whether it simply reflects decision signals coming from upstream structures and instead mainly contributes to the motor processes that follow commitment. To do so, we tested the impact of a disruption of M1 activity, induced by continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), on the behavior of human subjects in 1) a simple reaction time (SRT) task allowing us to estimate the duration of the motor processes and 2) a modified version of the tokens task (Cisek P, Puskas GA, El-Murr S. J Neurosci 29: 11560–11571, 2009), which allowed us to estimate subjects’ time of commitment as well as accuracy criterion. The efficiency of cTBS was attested by a reduction in motor evoked potential amplitudes following M1 disruption compared with those following a sham stimulation. Furthermore, M1 cTBS lengthened SRTs, indicating that motor processes were perturbed by the intervention. Importantly, all of the behavioral results in the tokens task were similar following M1 disruption and sham stimulation, suggesting that the contribution of M1 to the deliberation process is potentially negligible. Taken together, these findings favor the view that M1 contribution is downstream of the decision process. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Decisions between actions are ubiquitous in the animal realm. Deliberation during action choices entails changes in the activity of the sensorimotor areas controlling those actions, but the causal role of these areas is still often debated. With the use of continuous theta burst stimulation, we show that disrupting the primary motor cortex (M1) delays the motor processes that follow instructed commitment but does not alter volitional deliberation, suggesting that M1 contribution may be downstream of the decision process.

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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207