Demonstrating the need for long inter-stimulus intervals when studying the post-movement beta rebound following a simple button press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voluntary movements reliably elicit event-related synchronization of oscillatory neuronal rhythms in the beta (15-30 Hz) range immediately following movement offset, as measured by magneto/electroencephalography (M/EEG). This response has been termed the post-movement beta rebound (PMBR). While early work on the PMBR advocated for long inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs)-arguing that the PMBR might persist for several seconds-these concerns have since fallen by the wayside, with many recent studies employing very short (< 5 s) ISIs. In this work we interrogated sensor-level MEG time courses in 635 individuals who participated in a cued button-pressing paradigm as part of the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) project. We focussed on a subset of trials in which button presses were separated by at least 15 s and, using curve modeling and Bayesian inference, estimated the point at which beta power returned to baseline levels. We show that beta power takes around 4-5 s to return to baseline levels following movement. These results have important implications for experimental design. The PMBR is ubiquitously defined relative to a preceding baseline period; we argue that short ISIs preclude true baseline estimation and, in turn, accurate estimation of PMBR magnitude. We recommend that future studies targeting the PMBR use ISIs of at least 6-7 s, allowing 5 s for beta power to return to baseline, plus a 1-2 s period for proper baseline estimation. Further work is needed to clarify PMBR duration in the context of different sensorimotor paradigms and clinical populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".