No effect of triple-pulse TMS medial to intraparietal sulcus on online correction for target perturbations during goal-directed hand and foot reaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is central to sensorimotor processing for goal-directed hand and foot movements. Yet, the specific role of PPC subregions in these functions is not clear. Previous human neuroimaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) work has suggested that PPC lateral to the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) is involved in directing the arm, shaping the hand, and correcting both finger-shaping and hand trajectory during movement. The lateral localization of these functions agrees with the comparably lateral position of the hand and fingers within the motor and somatosensory homunculi along the central sulcus; this might suggest that, in analogy, (goal-directed) foot movements would be mediated by medial portions of PPC. However, foot movement planning activates similar regions for both hand and foot movement along the caudal-to-rostral axis of PPC, with some effector-specificity evident only rostrally, near the central regions of sensorimotor cortex. Here, we attempted to test the causal involvement of PPC regions medial to IPS in hand and foot reaching as well as online correction evoked by target displacement. Participants made hand and foot reaches towards identical visual targets. Sometimes, the target changed position 100-117 ms into the movement. We disturbed cortical processing over four positions medial to IPS with three pulses of TMS separated by 40 ms, both during trials with and without target displacement. We timed TMS to disrupt reach execution and online correction. TMS did not affect endpoint error, endpoint variability, or reach trajectories for hand or foot. While these negative results await replication with different TMS timing and parameters, we conclude that regions medial to IPS are involved in planning, rather than execution and online control, of goal-directed limb movements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".