Investigating female versus male differences in white matter neuroplasticity associated with complex visuo-motor learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has increasingly been used to characterize structure-function relationships during white matter neuroplasticity. Biological sex differences may be an important factor that affects patterns of neuroplasticity, and therefore impacts learning and rehabilitation. The current study examined a participant cohort before and after visuo-motor training to characterize sex differences in microstructural measures. The participants (N = 27) completed a 10-session (4 week) complex visuo-motor training task with their non-dominant hand. All participants significantly improved movement speed and their movement speed variability over the training period. White matter neuroplasticity in females and males was examined using fractional anisotropy (FA) and myelin water fraction (MWF) along the cortico-spinal tract (CST) and the corpus callosum (CC). FA values showed significant differences in the middle portion of the CST tract (nodes 38-51) across the training period. MWF showed a similar cluster in the inferior portion of the tract (nodes 18-29) but did not reach significance. Additionally, at baseline, males showed significantly higher levels of MWF measures in the middle body of the CC. Combining data from females and males would have resulted in reduced sensitivity, making it harder to detect differences in neuroplasticity. These findings offer initial insights into possible female versus male differences in white matter neuroplasticity during motor learning. This warrants investigations into specific patterns of white matter neuroplasticity for females versus males across the lifespan. Understanding biological sex-specific differences in white matter neuroplasticity may have significant implications for the interpretation of change associated with learning or rehabilitation.
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) | 0.003 | 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".