Rapid Online Corrections for Proprioceptive and Visual Perturbations Recruit Similar Circuits in Primary Motor Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important aspect of motor function is our ability to rapidly generate goal-directed corrections for disturbances to the limb or behavioral goal. The primary motor cortex (M1) is a key region involved in processing feedback for rapid motor corrections, yet we know little about how M1 circuits are recruited by different sources of sensory feedback to make rapid corrections. We trained two male monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ) to make goal-directed reaches and on random trials introduced different sensory errors by either jumping the visual location of the goal (goal jump), jumping the visual location of the hand (cursor jump), or applying a mechanical load to displace the hand (proprioceptive feedback). Sensory perturbations evoked a broad response in M1 with ∼73% of neurons ( n = 257) responding to at least one of the sensory perturbations. Feedback responses were also similar as response ranges between the goal and cursor jumps were highly correlated (range of r = [0.91, 0.97]) as were the response ranges between the mechanical loads and the visual perturbations (range of r = [0.68, 0.86]). Lastly, we identified the neural subspace each perturbation response resided in and found a strong overlap between the two visual perturbations (range of overlap index, 0.73–0.89) and between the mechanical loads and visual perturbations (range of overlap index, 0.36–0.47) indicating each perturbation evoked similar structure of activity at the population level. Collectively, our results indicate rapid responses to errors from different sensory sources target similar overlapping circuits in M1.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".