Maintained representations of the ipsilateral and contralateral limbs during bimanual control in primary motor cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary motor cortex (M1) almost exclusively controls the contralateral side of the body. However, M1 activity is also modulated during ipsilateral body movements. Previous work has shown that M1 activity related to the ipsilateral arm is independent of the M1 activity related to the contralateral arm. How do these patterns of activity interact when both arms move simultaneously? We explored this problem by training two monkeys (male, Macaca mulatta) in a postural perturbation task while recording from M1. Loads were applied to one arm at a time (unimanual) or both arms simultaneously (bimanual). We found 83% of neurons were responsive to both the unimanual and bimanual loads. We also observed a small reduction in activity magnitude during the bimanual loads for both limbs (25%). Across the unimanual and bimanual loads, neurons largely maintained their preferred load directions. However, there was a larger change in the preferred loads for the ipsilateral limb (~25%) than the contralateral limb (~9%). Lastly, we identified the contralateral and ipsilateral subspaces during the unimanual loads and found they captured a significant amount of the variance during the bimanual loads. However, the subspace captured more of the bimanual variance related to the contralateral limb (97%) than the ipsilateral limb (66%). Our results highlight that even during bimanual motor actions, M1 largely retains its representations of the contralateral and ipsilateral limbs. Significance Statement Previous work has shown that primary motor cortex (M1) reflects information related to the contralateral limb, its downstream target, but also reflects information related to the ipsilateral limb. Can M1 still reflect both sources of information when performing simultaneous movements of the limbs? Here we use a postural perturbation task to show that M1 activity maintains a similar representation for the contralateral limb during bimanual motor actions, while there is only a modest change in the representation of the ipsilateral limb. Our results indicate that two orthogonal representations can be maintained and expressed simultaneously in M1.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".