Assessing Language-Induced Motor Activity through Event Related Potentials and the Grip Force Sensor, an Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between language processing and motor systems has been the focus of increasing interest to Cognitive Neuroscience. Some classical papers studying Event Related Potentials (ERPs) induced by linguistic stimuli have found differences in electrophysiological activity when comparing action and non-action words; more specifically, a bigger p200 for action words. On the other hand, a series of studies have validated the use of a grip force sensor (GFS) to measure language-induced motor activity during both isolated words and sentence listening, finding that action words induce an augmentation in the grip force around 250-300 ms after the onset of the stimulus. The purpose of the present study is to combine both techniques to assess if the p200 is related to the augmentation of the grip force measured by a GFS. We measured ERP and GFS changes elicited by listening to action and non-action words while maintaining an active grasping task in 10 healthy subjects. Our results show that the amplitude of the p200 in central electrodes is correlated to the augmentation in the GFS around 300 ms induced by linguistic stimuli. To our knowledge, this is the first study where the electrophysiological activity and the changes in the grip force induced by auditory language processing are put together, opening new venues of interpretation for the sensorimotor interaction in language processing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".