Human Somatosensory Cortex Is Modulated during Motor Planning
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 (<i>N</i> = 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. <b>SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT</b> Whereas recent work on motor cortex has emphasized the critical role of movement planning in preparing neural activity for movement generation, it has not investigated the extent to which planning also modulates the activity in the adjacent primary somatosensory cortex. This reflects a key gap in knowledge, given that recent motor control theories emphasize the importance of sensory feedback processing in effective movement generation. Here, we find through a convergence of experiments and analyses, that the planning of object manipulation tasks, in addition to modulating the activity in the motor cortex, changes the state of neural activity in different subfields of the human S1. We suggest that this modulation prepares the S1 for the sensory information it will receive during action execution.
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".