MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2973448608 · doi:10.1167/19.10.278

An fMRI study identifying brain regions activated when performing well-learned versus newly learned visuomotor associations

2019· article· en· W2973448608 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth J. Saccone, Sheila G. Crewther, Melvyn A. Goodale, Philippe A. Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)PsychologyLateralization of brain functionNeuroscienceBrain mappingMotor areaFunctional magnetic resonance imagingAudiologyCognitive psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current fMRI study identified brain regions implicated in performing well-learned versus new visuomotor associations. Stimuli were 2 sets of 6 abstract images, each paired arbitrarily with a unique hand gesture. Participants rehearsed one set of pairings over 4 days and learned the other set immediately prior to scanning. Data were obtained for 14 participants, who demonstrated an average 76ms motor reaction time advantage when performing the well-learned associations immediately prior to fMRI scanning. Regions-of-interest for the left lateral-occipital (LO), the left anterior intra-parietal (AIP) and left medial intra-parietal (MIP) areas were obtained by an independent functional localizer. Parameter estimates extracted from these regions demonstrate a greater BOLD response in left LO for new compared to well-learned associations (t(13) = 3.322, p = .006), but not left AIP or left MIP. Results suggest the left-hemisphere ventral stream is strongly activated before the automatization of visuomotor associations.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→