Motor sequences; separating the sequence from the motor. A longitudinal rsfMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In motor learning, sequence specificity, i.e. the learning of specific sequential associations, has predominantly been studied using task-based fMRI paradigms. However, offline changes in resting state functional connectivity after sequence-specific motor learning are less well understood. Previous research has established that plastic changes following motor learning can be divided into stages including fast learning, slow learning and retention. A description of how resting state functional connectivity after sequence-specific motor sequence learning (MSL) develops across these stages is missing. This study aimed to identify plastic alterations in whole-brain functional connectivity after learning a complex motor sequence by contrasting an active group who learned a complex sequence with a control group who performed a control task matched for motor execution. Resting state fMRI and behavioural performance were collected in both groups over the course of 5 consecutive training days and at follow-up after 12 days to encompass fast learning, slow learning, overall learning and retention. Between-group interaction analyses showed sequence-specific decreases in functional connectivity during overall learning in the right supplementary motor area (SMA). We found that connectivity changes in a key region of the motor network, the superior parietal cortex (SPC) were not a result of sequence-specific learning but were instead linked to motor execution. Our study confirms the sequence-specific role of SMA that has previously been identified in online task-based learning studies, and extends it to resting state network changes after sequence-specific MSL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".