Concurrent action observation but not motor imagery modulates interhemispheric inhibition during physical execution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor control relies on an inhibitory connection between the motor cortices of the brain, known as interhemispheric inhibition (IHI). This phenomenon is well established during the execution of unilateral motor tasks. It is unknown if the neurophysiological effects associated with IHI during physical execution (PE) also occur during action observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) and/or if the addition of these covert processes to PE moderates IHI; speaking to differences in neurophysiology and functional equivalence. Participants (N=23) performed unilateral concentric wrist contractions (50% maximum voluntary contraction) under three conditions: PE alone, concurrent PE+AO, and concurrent PE+MI. To index IHI, we induced an ipsilateral silent period (iSP) and assessed iSP duration during each condition via neuro-navigated single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the ipsilateral motor cortex. Relative to PE alone, iSP decreased during PE+AO, yet only when this condition preceded PE+MI. iSP duration was not modulated during PE+MI. Together, these data suggest that PE+AO promotes bilateral recruitment and ‘interhemispheric cooperation’ rather than inhibition. AO and MI differentially impact interhemispheric coordination, serving to suppress inhibition only when AO is primed by MI.
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".