Contributions of the Left- and the Right-Hemisphere on the Language-Induced Grip Force Modulation of the Left Hand in Unimanual Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: The language-induced grip force modulation (GFM) can be used to better understand the link between the language and motor functions as an expression of the embodied language. However, the contribution of each brain hemisphere to the language-induced GFM is still unclear. Using six different action verbs as stimuli, this study evaluated the GFM of the left hand in unimanual task to characterize the left- and right-hemisphere contributions. Materials and Methods: The left-hand GFM of 20 healthy consistent right-handers subjects was evaluated using the verbs “to write”, “to hold”, “to pull”(left-lateralized central processing actions), “to draw”, “to tie”, and “to drive” (bi-hemispheric central processing actions) as linguistic stimuli. The time between the word onset and the first interval of statistical significance regarding the baseline (RT) was also measured. Results: The six verbs produced language-induced GFM. The modulation intensity was similar for the six verbs, but the RT was variable. The verbs “to draw”, “to tie”, and “to drive”, whose central processing of the described action is bihemispheric showed a longer Rt compared to the other verbs. Conclusions: The possibility that an action is performed by the left-hand does not interfere with the occurrence of GFM when this action verb is employed as linguistic stimulus. Therefore, the language-induced GFM seems mainly rely on the left hemisphere, and the engagement of the right hemisphere seems to slow down the increase in the GFM intensity.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".