MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182749936 · doi:10.1101/2021.07.07.451552

Mapping the integration of sensory information across fingers in human sensorimotor cortex

2021· preprint· en· W3182749936 on OpenAlexafffund
Spencer A. Arbuckle, J. Andrew Pruszynski, Jörn Diedrichsen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsSomatosensory systemSensory systemNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPrimary motor cortexPopulationCortex (anatomy)PsychologyMotor cortexBiologyComputer scienceStimulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The integration of somatosensory signals across fingers is essential for dexterous object manipulation. Previous experiments suggest that this integration occurs in neural populations in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). However, the integration process has not been fully characterized, as previous studies have mainly used two-finger stimulation paradigms. Here, we addressed this gap by stimulating all 31 single- and multi-finger combinations. We measured population-wide activity patterns evoked during finger stimulation in human S1 and primary motor cortex (M1) using 7T functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in female and male participants. Using multivariate fMRI analyses, we found clear evidence of unique non-linear interactions between fingers. In Brodmann area (BA) 3b, interactions predominantly occurred between pairs of neighbouring fingers. In BA 2, however, we found equally strong interactions between spatially distant fingers, as well as interactions between finger triplets and quadruplets. We additionally observed strong interactions in the hand area of M1. In both M1 and S1, these non-linear interactions did not reflect a general suppression of overall activity, suggesting instead that the interactions we observed reflect rich, non-linear integration of sensory inputs from the fingers. We suggest that this non-linear finger integration allows for a highly flexible mapping from finger sensory inputs to motor responses that facilitates dexterous object manipulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207