Motor Resonance During Action Observation and Its Relevance to Virtual Clinical Consultations: Observational Study Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual clinical interactions have increased tremendously since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While they certainly have their advantages, there also exist potential limitations, for example, in establishing a therapeutic alliance, discussing complex clinical scenarios, etc. This may be due to possible disruptions in the accurate activation of the human mirror neuron system (MNS), a posited physiological template for effective social communication. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare motor resonance, a putative marker of MNS activity, estimated using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) elicited while viewing virtual (video-based) and actual or real (enacted by a person) actions in healthy individuals. We hypothesized that motor resonance will be greater during real compared to virtual action observation. METHODS: We compared motor resonance or motor-evoked potential (MEP) facilitation during the observation of virtual (presented via videos) and real (enacted in person) actions, relative to static image observation in healthy individuals using TMS. The MEP recordings were obtained by 2 single-pulse (neuronal membrane excitability-driven) TMS paradigms of different intensities and 2 paired-pulse (cortical gamma-aminobutyric acid-interneuron-driven) TMS paradigms. RESULTS: This study comprised 64 participants. Using the repeated measures ANOVA, we observed a significant time effect for MEP facilitation from static to virtual and real observation states when recorded using 3 of the 4 TMS paradigms. Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction revealed significant MEP facilitation in both virtual and real observation states relative to static image observation; however, we also observed a significant time effect between the 2 action observation states (real > virtual) with 2 of the 4 TMS paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that visual cues expressed via both virtual (video) or real (in person) modes elicit physiological responses within the putative MNS, but this effect is more pronounced for actions presented in person. This has relevance to the appropriate implementation of digital health solutions, especially those pertaining to mental health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".