Neural excursions from manifold structure explain patterns of learning during human sensorimotor adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans vary greatly in their motor learning abilities, yet little is known about the neural mechanisms that underlie this variability. Recent neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies demonstrate that large-scale neural dynamics inhabit a low-dimensional subspace or manifold, and that learning is constrained by this intrinsic manifold architecture. Here, we asked, using functional MRI, whether subject-level differences in neural excursion from manifold structure can explain differences in learning across participants. We had subjects perform a sensorimotor adaptation task in the MRI scanner on 2 consecutive days, allowing us to assess their learning performance across days, as well as continuously measure brain activity. We find that the overall neural excursion from manifold activity in both cognitive and sensorimotor brain networks is associated with differences in subjects' patterns of learning and relearning across days. These findings suggest that off-manifold activity provides an index of the relative engagement of different neural systems during learning, and that subject differences in patterns of learning and relearning are related to reconfiguration processes occurring in cognitive and sensorimotor networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".