Does Ipsilateral Remapping Following Hand Loss Impact Motor Control of the Intact Hand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What happens once a cortical territory becomes functionally redundant? We studied changes in brain function and behavior for the remaining hand in humans (male and female) with either a missing hand from birth (one-handers) or due to amputation. Previous studies reported that amputees, but not one-handers, show increased ipsilateral activity in the somatosensory territory of the missing hand (i.e., remapping). We used a complex finger task to explore whether this observed remapping in amputees involves recruiting more neural resources to support the intact hand to meet greater motor control demands. Using basic fMRI analysis, we found that only amputees had more ipsilateral activity when motor demand increased; however, this did not match any noticeable improvement in their behavioral task performance. More advanced multivariate fMRI analyses showed that amputees had stronger and more typical representation-relative to controls' contralateral hand representation-compared with one-handers. This suggests that in amputees, both hand areas work together more collaboratively, potentially reflecting the intact hand's efference copy. One-handers struggled to learn difficult finger configurations, but this did not translate to differences in univariate or multivariate activity relative to controls. Additional white matter analysis provided conclusive evidence that the structural connectivity between the two hand areas did not vary across groups. Together, our results suggest that enhanced activity in the missing hand territory may not reflect intact hand function. Instead, we suggest that plasticity is more restricted than generally assumed and may depend on the availability of homologous pathways acquired early in life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".