Interhemispheric inhibition between dorsal premotor and primary motor cortices is released during preparation of unimanual but not bimanual movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research applying transcranial magnetic stimulation during unimanual reaction time tasks indicates a transient change in the inhibitory influence of the dorsal premotor cortex over the contralateral primary motor cortex shortly after the presentation of an imperative stimulus. The degree of interhemispheric inhibition from the dorsal premotor cortex to the contralateral primary motor cortex shifts depending on whether the targeted effector representation in the primary motor cortex is selected for movement. Further, the timing of changes in inhibition covaries with the selection demands of the reaction time task. Less is known about modulation of dorsal premotor to primary motor cortex interhemispheric inhibition during the preparation of bimanual movements. In this study, we used a dual coil transcranial magnetic stimulation to measure dorsal premotor to primary motor cortex interhemispheric inhibition between both hemispheres during unimanual and bimanual simple reaction time trials. Interhemispheric inhibition was measured early and late in the 'pre-movement period' (defined as the period immediately after the onset of the imperative stimulus and before the beginning of voluntary muscle activity). We discovered that interhemispheric inhibition was more facilitatory early in the pre-movement period compared with late in the pre-movement period during unimanual reaction time trials. In contrast, interhemispheric inhibition was unchanged throughout the pre-movement period during symmetrical bimanual reaction time trials. These results suggest that there is greater interaction between the dorsal premotor cortex and contralateral primary motor cortex during the preparation of unimanual actions compared to bimanual actions.
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) | 0.002 | 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".