Associative white matter tracts selectively predict sensorimotor learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human learning varies greatly among individuals and is related to the microstructure of major white matter tracts in several learning domains, yet the impact of the existing microstructure of white matter tracts on future learning outcomes remains unclear. We employed a machine-learning model selection framework to evaluate whether existing microstructure might predict individual differences in learning a sensorimotor task, and further, if the mapping between tract microstructure and learning was selective for learning outcomes. We used diffusion tractography to measure the mean fractional anisotropy (FA) of white matter tracts in 60 adult participants who then practiced drawing a set of 40 unfamiliar symbols repeatedly using a digital writing tablet. We measured drawing learning as the slope of draw duration over the practice session and measured visual recognition learning for the symbols using an old/new 2-AFC task. Results demonstrated that tract microstructure selectively predicted learning outcomes, with left hemisphere pArc and SLF3 tracts predicting drawing learning and the left hemisphere MDLFspl predicting visual recognition learning. These results were replicated using repeat, held-out data and supported with complementary analyses. Results suggest that individual differences in the microstructure of human white matter tracts may be selectively related to future learning outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".