Sensorimotor Expectations Bias Motor Resonance during Observation of Object Lifting: The Causal Role of pSTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies have highlighted that corticospinal excitability is increased during observation of object lifting, an effect termed “motor resonance.” This facilitation is driven by movement features indicative of object weight, such as object size or observed movement kinematics. Here, we investigated in 35 humans (23 females) how motor resonance is altered when the observer's weight expectations, based on visual information, do not match the actual object weight as revealed by the observed movement kinematics. Our results highlight that motor resonance is not robustly driven by object weight but easily masked by a suppressive mechanism reflecting the correctness of weight expectations. Subsequently, we investigated in 24 humans (14 females) whether this suppressive mechanism was driven by higher-order cortical areas. For this, we induced “virtual lesions” to either the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) before having participants perform the task. Importantly, virtual lesion of pSTS eradicated this suppressive mechanism and restored object weight-driven motor resonance. In addition, DLPFC virtual lesion eradicated any modulation of motor resonance. This indicates that motor resonance is heavily mediated by top-down inputs from both pSTS and DLPFC. Together, these findings shed new light on the theorized cortical network driving motor resonance. That is, our findings highlight that motor resonance is not only driven by the putative human mirror neuron network consisting of the primary motor and premotor cortices as well as the anterior intraparietal sulcus, but also by top-down input from pSTS and DLPFC. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Observation of object lifting activates the observer's motor system in a weight-specific fashion: Corticospinal excitability is larger when observing lifts of heavy objects compared with light ones. Interestingly, here we demonstrate that this weight-driven modulation of corticospinal excitability is easily suppressed by the observer's expectations about object weight and that this suppression is mediated by the posterior superior temporal sulcus. Thus, our findings show that modulation of corticospinal excitability during observed object lifting is not robust but easily altered by top-down cognitive processes. Finally, our results also indicate how cortical inputs, originating remotely from motor pathways and processing action observation, overlap with bottom-up motor resonance effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".