Artificial embodiment displaces cortical neuromagnetic somatosensory responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating artificial limbs as part of one's body involves complex neuroplastic changes resulting from various sensory inputs. While somatosensory feedback is crucial, plastic processes that enable embodiment remain unknown. We investigated this using somatosensory evoked fields (SEFs) in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) following the Rubber Hand Illusion (RHI), known to quickly induce artificial limb embodiment. During electrical stimulation of the little finger and thumb, 19 adults underwent neuromagnetic recordings before and after the RHI. We found early SEF displacement, including an illusion-brain correlation between extent of embodiment and specific changes to the first cortical response at 20 ms in Area 3b, within S1. Furthermore, we observed a posteriorly directed displacement at 35 ms towards Area 1, known to be important for visual integration during touch perception. That this second displacement was unrelated to extent of embodiment implies a functional distinction between neuroplastic changes of these components and areas. The earlier shift in Area 3b may shape extent of limb ownership, while subsequent displacement into Area 1 may relate to early visual-tactile integration that initiates embodiment. Here we provide evidence for multiple neuroplastic processes in S1-lasting beyond the illusion-supporting integration of artificial limbs like prostheses within the body representation.
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) | 0.001 | 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".