Human Somatosensory Cortex Is Modulated during Motor Planning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent data and motor control theory argues that movement planning involves preparing the neural state of primary motor cortex (M1) for forthcoming action execution. Theories related to internal models, feedback control, and predictive coding also emphasize the importance of sensory prediction (and processing) before (and during) the movement itself, explaining why motor-related deficits can arise from damage to primary somatosensory cortex (S1). Motivated by this work, here we examined whether motor planning, in addition to changing the neural state of M1, changes the neural state of S1, preparing it for the sensory feedback that arises during action. We tested this idea in two human functional MRI studies (N = 31, 16 females) involving delayed object manipulation tasks, focusing our analysis on premovement activity patterns in M1 and S1. We found that the motor effector to be used in the upcoming action could be decoded, well before movement, from neural activity in M1 in both studies. Critically, we found that this effector information was also present, well before movement, in S1. In particular, we found that the encoding of effector information in area 3b (S1 proper) was linked to the contralateral hand, similarly to that found in M1, whereas in areas 1 and 2 this encoding was present in both the contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres. Together, these findings suggest that motor planning not only prepares the motor system for movement but also changes the neural state of the somatosensory system, presumably allowing it to anticipate the sensory information received during movement.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it