Hemispheric Differences in Functional Interactions Between the Dorsal Lateral Prefrontal Cortex and Ipsilateral Motor Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in both hemispheres have a central integrative function for motor control and behavior. Understanding the hemispheric difference between DLPFC and ipsilateral motor cortex connection in the resting-state will provide fundamental knowledge to explain the different roles DLPFC play in motor behavior. Purpose: The current study tested the interactions between the ipsilateral DLPFC and primary motor cortex (M1) in each hemisphere at rest. We hypothesized that left DLPFC has greater inhibitory effect on the ipsilateral M1 compared to the right DLPFC. Methods: Fourteen right-handed subjects were tested in a dual-coil paired-pulse paradigm using transcranial magnetic stimulation. The conditioning stimulus (CS) was applied to the DLPFC and the test stimulus (TS) was applied to M1. Interstimulus intervals (ISIs) between CS and TS were 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 ms. The result was expressed as a percentage of the mean peak-to-peak amplitude of the unconditioned test pulse. Results: There was stronger inhibitory effect for the left compared to the right hemisphere at ISIs of 2 (p = 0.45), 10 (p = 0.006), 15 (p = 0.029) and 20 (p = 0.024) ms. There was no significant inhibition or facilitation at any ISI in the right hemisphere. Conclusions: The two hemispheres have distinct DLPFC and M1 cortico-cortical connectivity at rest. Left hemisphere DLPFC is dominant in inhibiting ipsilateral 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".