The motor-related brain activity that supports joint action: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen a rapid increase in research investigating the motor-related brain activity that supports joint action. This research has employed a variety of joint action tasks and an array of neuroimaging techniques, including fMRI, fNIRS, EEG, and TMS. In this review, we provide an overview of this research to delineate what is known about the motor-related brain activity that contributes to joint action and to highlight key questions for future research. Taken together, the surveyed research supports three major conclusions. First, the mere presence of a joint action context is sufficient to modulate motor activity elicited by observing others' actions. Second, joint action is supported by dissociable motor activity associated with a person's own actions, their partner's actions, and the joint action, and by between-brain coupling of motor-related oscillatory activity. Third, the structure of a joint action modulates the motor activity involved: Unique motor activity is associated with performing joint actions comprised of complementary actions and with holding the roles of leader and follower within a joint action. We conclude the review by highlighting overarching themes and key questions for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".