MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sensorimotor Expectations Bias Motor Resonance during Observation of Object Lifting: The Causal Role of pSTS

2020· article· en· W3015295120 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Rens, Vonne van Polanen, Alessandro Botta, Mareike A. Gann, Jean‐Jacques Orban de Xivry, Marco Davare

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteWestern University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceTranscranial magnetic stimulationPremotor cortexPsychologyIntraparietal sulcusMotor systemStimulationBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207