ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Cortical activity predicts good variation in human motor output.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Higher visual gain contributions to bilateral motor synergies and force control.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human movement patterns have been shown to be particularly variable if many combinations of activity in different muscles all achieve the same task goal (i.e., are goal-equivalent). The nervous system appears to automatically vary its output among goal-equivalent combinations of muscle activity to minimize muscle fatigue or distribute tissue loading, but the neural mechanism of this "good" variation is unknown. Here we use a bimanual finger task, electroencephalography (EEG), and machine learning to determine if cortical signals can predict goal-equivalent variation in finger force output. 18 healthy participants applied left and right index finger forces to repeatedly perform a task that involved matching a total (sum of right and left) finger force. As in previous studies, we observed significantly more variability in goal-equivalent muscle activity across task repetitions compared to variability in muscle activity that would not achieve the goal: participants achieved the task in some repetitions with more right finger force and less left finger force (right > left) and in other repetitions with less right finger force and more left finger force (left > right). We found that EEG signals from the 500 milliseconds (ms) prior to each task repetition could make a significant prediction of which repetitions would have right > left and which would have left > right. We also found that cortical maps of sites contributing to the prediction contain both motor and pre-motor representation in the appropriate hemisphere. Thus, goal-equivalent variation in motor output may be implemented at a cortical level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28161821What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.