Non-shared coding of observed and executed actions prevails in macaque ventral premotor mirror neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the mirror mechanism the discharge of F5 mirror neurons of a monkey observing another individual performing an action is a motor representation of the observed action that may serve to understand or learn from the action. This hypothesis, if strictly interpreted, requires mirror neurons to exhibit an action tuning that is shared between action observation and execution. Due to insufficient data it remains contentious if this requirement is met. To fill in the gaps, we conducted an experiment in which identical objects had to be manipulated in three different ways in order to serve distinct action goals. Using three methods, including cross-task classification, we found that at most time points F5 mirror neurons did not encode observed actions with the same code underlying action execution. However, in about 20% of neurons there were time periods with a shared code. These time periods formed a distinct cluster and cannot be considered a product of chance. Population classification yielded non-shared coding for observed actions in the whole population, which was at times optimal and consistently better than shared coding in differentially selected subpopulations. These results support the hypothesis of a representation of observed actions based on a strictly defined mirror mechanism only for small subsets of neurons and only under the assumption of time-resolved readout. Considering alternative concepts and recent findings, we propose that during observation mirror neurons represent the process of a goal pursuit from the observer's viewpoint. Whether the observer's goal pursuit, in which the other's action goal becomes the observer's action goal, or the other's goal pursuit is represented remains to be clarified. In any case, it may allow the observer to use expectations associated with a goal pursuit to directly intervene in or learn from another's action.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".