Distributed Motor Control of Limb Movements in Rat Motor and Somatosensory Cortex: The Sensorimotor Amalgam Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Which areas of the neocortex are involved in the control of movement, and how is motor cortex organized across species? Recent studies using long-train intracortical microstimulation demonstrate that in addition to M1, movements can be elicited from somatosensory regions in multiple species. In the rat, M1 hindlimb and forelimb movement representations have long been thought to overlap with somatosensory representations of the hindlimb and forelimb in S1, forming a partial sensorimotor amalgam. Here we use long-train intracortical microstimulation to characterize the movements elicited across frontal and parietal cortex. We found that movements of the hindlimb, forelimb, and face can be elicited from both M1 and histologically defined S1 and that representations of limb movement types are different in these two areas. Stimulation of S1 generates retraction of the contralateral forelimb, while stimulation of M1 evokes forelimb elevation movements that are often bilateral, including a rostral region of digit grasping. Hindlimb movement representations include distinct regions of hip flexion and hindlimb retraction evoked from S1 and hip extension evoked from M1. Our data indicate that both S1 and M1 are involved in the generation of movement types exhibited during natural behavior. We draw on these results to reconsider how sensorimotor cortex evolved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".