Neural correlates of hand-object congruency effects during action planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Selecting hand actions to manipulate an object is affected both by perceptual factors and by action goals. Affordances are associated with the automatic potentiation of motor representations to an object, independent of the goal of the actor. In previous studies, we have demonstrated an influence of the congruency between hand and object orientations on response times when reaching to turn an object, such as a cup. In this study, we investigated how the representation of hand postures triggered by planning to turn a cup were influenced by this congruency effect, in an fMRI scanning environment. Healthy participants were asked to reach and turn a real cup that was placed in front of them either in an upright orientation or upside down. They were instructed to use a hand orientation that was either congruent or incongruent with the cup orientation. As expected, the motor responses were faster when the hand and cup orientations were congruent. There was increased activity in a network of brain regions involving object-directed actions during action planning, which included bilateral primary and extrastriate visual, medial and superior temporal areas, as well as superior parietal, primary motor and premotor areas in the left hemisphere. Specific activation of the dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) was associated with hand-object orientation congruency during planning, and prior to any action taking place. Activity in that area and its connectivity with the lateral occipito-temporal cortex (LOTC) increased when planning incongruent actions. The increased activity in premotor areas in trials where the orientation of the hand was incongruent to that of the object suggests a role in eliciting competing representations specified by hand postures in LOTC.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".