Reweighting of visuomotor areas during motor processing subsequent to somatosensory cortical damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatosensory inputs are critical to motor control. Animal studies have shown that primary somatosensory lesions cause sensorimotor deficits along with disrupted organization in primary motor cortex (M1). How does damage in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) influence motor networks in humans? Using fMRI, we examined two individuals, LS and RF, who had extensive damage to left somatosensory cortex, but primarily intact motor cortex and preserved motor abilities. Given left S1 damage, tactile detection and localization were impaired for the contralesional hand in both individuals. When moving the contralesional hand, LS, with near complete damage to S1 hand area, showed increased activation in ipsilesional putamen and deactivation in contralesional cerebellum relative to age-matched controls. These findings demonstrate influences of S1 damage to subcortical sensorimotor areas that are distant from the lesion site, and a potential reweighting of the motor network with increased action selection in putamen and inhibition of sensory prediction in cerebellum in the face of sensory loss. In contrast, RF, who had a small island of spared S1 in the hand area, showed greater activation in contralesional S1 for movement versus rest. This same region was also activated by pure somatosensory stimulation in a second experiment, suggesting that the spared S1 area in RF still subserves sensorimotor processing. Finally, the right middle occipital gyrus was more strongly activated in both individuals compared with controls, suggesting the potential reliance on visual imagery in the face of degraded sensory feedback.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".