Sensory expectations shape neural population dynamics in motor circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neural basis of movement preparation has been extensively studied during self-initiated actions where motor cortical activity during preparation shows a lawful relationship to the parameters of the subsequent action 1,2 . However, movements are regularly triggered and constantly corrected based on sensory inputs caused by disturbances to the body or environment. Since such disturbances are often predictable and since preparing for disturbances would make movements better, we hypothesized that expectations about sensory inputs also influence preparatory activity in motor circuits. Here we show that when humans and monkeys are probabilistically cued about the direction of a future mechanical perturbation, they incorporate sensory expectations into their movement preparation and improve their corrective responses. Using high-density neural recordings, we establish that sensory expectations are widespread across the brain, including the motor cortical areas involved in preparing self-initiated actions. The geometry of these preparatory signals in the neural population state is simple, scaling directly with the probability of each perturbation direction. After perturbation onset, a condition-independent perturbation signal shifts the neural state leading to rapid responses that initially reflect sensory expectations. Based on neural networks coupled to a biomechanical model of the arm 3 , we show that this neural geometry emerges through training, but only when the incoming sensory information indicating perturbation direction coincides with – or is preceded by – a condition-independent signal indicating that a perturbation has occurred. Thus, motor circuit dynamics are shaped by future sensory inputs, providing clear empirical support for the idea that movement is governed by the sophisticated manipulation of sensory feedback 4 .
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".