Human local field potentials in motor and non-motor brain areas encode upcoming movement direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limb movement direction can be inferred from local field potentials in motor cortex during movement execution. Yet, it remains unclear to what extent intended hand movements can be predicted from brain activity recorded during movement planning. Here, we set out to probe the directional-tuning of oscillatory features during motor planning and execution, using a machine learning framework on multi-site local field potentials (LFPs) in humans. We recorded intracranial EEG data from implanted epilepsy patients as they performed a four-direction delayed center-out motor task. Fronto-parietal LFP low-frequency power predicted hand-movement direction during planning while execution was largely mediated by higher frequency power and low-frequency phase in motor areas. By contrast, Phase-Amplitude Coupling showed uniform modulations across directions. Finally, multivariate classification led to an increase in overall decoding accuracy (>80%). The novel insights revealed here extend our understanding of the role of neural oscillations in encoding motor plans.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".