MEG signals reveal arm posture coding and intrinsic movement plans in parietofrontal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Movement planning processes must account for body posture to accurately convert sensory signals into movement plans. While movement plans can be computed relative to the world (extrinsic), intrinsic muscle commands tuned for current limb posture are ultimately needed to execute spatially accurate movements. The whole-brain topology and dynamics of this process are largely unknown. Here, we use high spatiotemporal resolution magnetoencephalography (MEG) in humans combined with a Pro-/Anti-wrist pointing task with 2 opposing forearm postures to investigate this question. First, we computed cortical source activity in 16 previously identified bilateral cortical areas (Alikhanian, et al., Frontiers in Neuroscience 2013). We then contrasted oscillatory activity related to opposing wrist postures to find posture coding and test when and where extrinsic and intrinsic motor codes occurred. We found a distinct pair of overlapping networks coding for posture (predominantly in γ band) vs. posture-specific movement plans (α and β). Some areas (e.g., pIPS) only showed extrinsic motor coding, and others (e.g., AG) only showed intrinsic coding, but the majority showed both types of codes. In the latter case, intrinsic codes appeared slightly before extrinsic codes and persisted in parallel across different cortical areas. These findings are consistent with two cortical networks for 1) direct feed-forward sensorimotor transformations to intrinsic muscle coordinates (for rapid control) and 2) computations of extrinsic spatial coordinates, possibly for use in higher-level aspects of visually-guided action, such as spatial updating and internal performance monitoring. Significance statement / author summary It is thought that the brain incorporates posture into extrinsic spatial codes to compute intrinsic (muscle-centered) motor commands, but the whole-brain temporal dynamics of this process is unknown. Here we employed human magneto-encephalography (MEG) to track this process across 16 bilateral cortical sites. We identified two, largely overlapping subnetworks for posture-dependent intrinsic codes, and extrinsic spatial coding. Surprisingly, the direct transformation from sensorimotor coordinates to intrinsic commands preceded the appearance of extrinsic codes, suggesting that extrinsic motor codes are derived from intrinsic codes for higher-level cognitive purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".