Tactile suppression is linked to movement onset for startle-triggered responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to perceive a tactile stimulus is reduced in a moving limb, a phenomenon known as tactile suppression. This sensory attenuation effect is attributed to movement-related gating, which allows the central nervous system to selectively process sensory information. However, the source of this gating is uncertain, with some evidence suggesting a forward-model origin of tactile suppression, and other evidence in support of backward masking from peripheral reafference. This study investigated the contribution of these mechanisms to tactile suppression by employing a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) to involuntarily trigger the early release of a planned movement. A forward-model account would predict that the timing of the suppression would align with the anticipated time of voluntary response initiation, whereas a reafference account would predict that suppression timing would be linked directly to the actual time of the motor act. Participants (n = 27) performed a simple reaction time task involving a rapid wrist extension to release a switch in response to an auditory go-signal, which was occasionally replaced with a 120 dB SAS. On each trial, participants reported whether they detected a near-threshold electrical stimulus applied to the moving hand at various times (50-170ms; 30 ms steps) after the go-signal. Results showed a significantly lower detection rate on SAS trials at all stimulation times (p < .001), supporting the proposition that suppression does not depend on the predicted timing of voluntary initiation, but rather is linked to the production of the motor response. Furthermore, detection rate was significantly lower on SAS trials even when time-locked to movement onset, suggesting that the SAS may have further impeded sensory processing (p < .001).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".