Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32284337›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2020

Sensorimotor Expectations Bias Motor Resonance during Observation of Object Lifting: The Causal Role of pSTS.

Guy Rens, Vonne van Polanen, Alessandro Botta, Mareike A Gann, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Marco Davare

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Guy RensMovement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium grens@uwo.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1000-529X
Vonne van PolanenMovement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium.
Alessandro BottaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Section of Human Physiology, University of Genoa, Genoa, 16132, Italy.
Mareike A GannMovement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium.
Jean-Jacques Orban de XivryMovement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4603-7939
Marco DavareDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, College of Health and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PN, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4670-0251
Allen Institute for Brain Science · USBrunel University of London · GBUniversity of Genoa · ITWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies have highlighted that corticospinal excitability is increased during observation of object lifting, an effect termed "motor resonance." This facilitation is driven by movement features indicative of object weight, such as object size or observed movement kinematics. Here, we investigated in 35 humans (23 females) how motor resonance is altered when the observer's weight expectations, based on visual information, do not match the actual object weight as revealed by the observed movement kinematics. Our results highlight that motor resonance is not robustly driven by object weight but easily masked by a suppressive mechanism reflecting the correctness of weight expectations. Subsequently, we investigated in 24 humans (14 females) whether this suppressive mechanism was driven by higher-order cortical areas. For this, we induced "virtual lesions" to either the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) before having participants perform the task. Importantly, virtual lesion of pSTS eradicated this suppressive mechanism and restored object weight-driven motor resonance. In addition, DLPFC virtual lesion eradicated any modulation of motor resonance. This indicates that motor resonance is heavily mediated by top-down inputs from both pSTS and DLPFC. Together, these findings shed new light on the theorized cortical network driving motor resonance. That is, our findings highlight that motor resonance is not only driven by the putative human mirror neuron network consisting of the primary motor and premotor cortices as well as the anterior intraparietal sulcus, but also by top-down input from pSTS and DLPFC.

Indexed as

LiftingAnticipation, PsychologicalBiomechanical PhenomenaElectromyographyFemaleHumansMaleMirror NeuronsNerve NetObservationPrefrontal CortexPyramidal TractsTemporal LobeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationVisual PerceptionWeight Perceptionaction observationcorticospinal excitabilitymirror neuronsmotor resonanceobject liftingsensorimotor

Identifiers

PMID32284337
PMCPMC7219289
OpenAlexW3015295120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.