Motor Planning Modulates Neural Activity Patterns in Early Human Auditory Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that movement planning recruits motor-related cortical brain areas in preparation for the forthcoming action. Given that an integral component to the control of action is the processing of sensory information throughout movement, we predicted that movement planning might also modulate early sensory cortical areas, readying them for sensory processing during the unfolding action. To test this hypothesis, we performed 2 human functional magnetic resonance imaging studies involving separate delayed movement tasks and focused on premovement neural activity in early auditory cortex, given the area's direct connections to the motor system and evidence that it is modulated by motor cortex during movement in rodents. We show that effector-specific information (i.e., movements of the left vs. right hand in Experiment 1 and movements of the hand vs. eye in Experiment 2) can be decoded, well before movement, from neural activity in early auditory cortex. We find that this motor-related information is encoded in a separate subregion of auditory cortex than sensory-related information and is present even when movements are cued visually instead of auditorily. These findings suggest that action planning, in addition to preparing the motor system for movement, involves selectively modulating primary sensory areas based on the intended action.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".