Functional brain networks underlying the interaction between central and peripheral processes involved in Chinese handwriting in children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural mechanisms that support handwriting, an important mode of human communication, are thought to be controlled by a central process (responsible for spelling) and a peripheral process (responsible for motor output). However, the relationship between central and peripheral processes has been debated. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, this study examined the neural mechanisms underlying this relationship in Chinese handwriting in 36 children (mean age = 10.40 years) and 56 adults (mean age = 22.36 years) by manipulating character frequency (a central variable). Brain network analysis showed that character frequency reconfigured functional brain networks known to underlie motor processes, including the somatomotor and cerebellar network, in both children and adults, indicating that central processing cascades into peripheral processing. Furthermore, the network analysis characterized the interaction profiles between motor networks and linguistic-cognitive networks, fully mapping the neural architecture that supports the interaction of central and peripheral processes involved in handwriting. Taken together, these results reveal the neural interface underlying the interaction between central and peripheral processes involved in handwriting in a logographic writing system, advancing our understanding of the neural basis of handwriting.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".