The effects of explicit and implicit information on modulation of corticospinal excitability during hand-object interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fingertip force scaling during hand-object interactions typically relies on visual information about the object and sensorimotor memories from previous object interactions. Here, we investigated whether contextual information, that is not explicitly linked to the intrinsic object properties (e.g., size or weight) but is informative for motor control requirements, can mediate force scaling. For this, we relied on two separate behavioral tasks during which we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to probe corticospinal excitability (CSE), as a window onto the primary motor cortex role in controlling fingertip forces. In experiment 1, participants performed a force tracking task, where we manipulated available implicit and explicit visual information. That is, either the force target was fully visible, or only the force error was displayed as a deviation from a horizontal line. We found that participants’ performance was better when the former condition, in which they had explicit access to predictive information. However, we did not find differences in CSE modulation based on the type of visual information. On the other hand, CSE was modulated by the change in muscle contraction, i.e., contraction vs. relaxation and fast vs. slow changes. In sum, these findings indicate that CSE only reflects the ongoing motor command. In experiment 2, other participants performed a sequential object lifting task of visually identical objects that were differently weighted, in a seemingly random order. Within this task, we hid short series of incrementally increasing object weights. This allowed us to investigate whether participants would scale their forces for specific object weights based on the previously lifted object (i.e., sensorimotor effect) or based on the implicit information about the hidden series of incrementally increasing weights (i.e., extrapolation beyond sensorimotor effects). Results showed that participants did not extrapolate fingertip forces based on the hidden series but scaled their forces solely on the previously lifted object. Unsurprisingly, CSE was not modulated differently when lifting series of random weights versus series of increasing weights. Altogether, these results in two different grasping tasks suggest that CSE encodes ongoing motor components but not sensorimotor cues that are hidden within contextual information. Highlights Explicit visual cues and sensorimotor experience are key for object grasping Investigating influence of implicit, contextual information on object grasping Explicit but not implicit cues improve motor performance during object grasping Explicit but not implicit cues modulate corticospinal excitability
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".