Back

Imagining and reading actions: towards similar motor representations

dupont, w.; Papaxanthis, C.; Madden-Lombardi, C.; Lebon, F.

2022-06-09 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.06.07.495123 bioRxiv
Show abstract

While action language and motor imagery both engage the motor system, determining whether these two processes indeed share the same motor representations would contribute to better understanding their underlying mechanisms. We conducted two experiments probing the mutual influence of these two processes. In Exp.1, hand-action verbs were presented subliminally, and participants (n=36) selected the verb they thought they perceived from two alternatives. When congruent actions were imagined prior to this task, accuracy significantly increased, i.e. participants were better able to "see" the subliminal verbs. In Exp.2, participants (n=19) imagined hand flexion or extension, while corticospinal excitability was measured via transcranial magnetic stimulation. Corticospinal excitability was modulated by action verbs subliminally presented prior to imagery. Specifically, the typical increase observed during imagery was suppressed after presentation of incongruent action verbs. This mutual influence of action language and motor imagery, both at behavioral and neurophysiological levels, suggests overlapping motor representations.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
17.9%
Similar papers in this journal
2
The Journal of Neuroscience
● 1025 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.5%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
European Journal of Neuroscience
○ 189 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Journal of Neurophysiology
● 302 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
5.3%
Similar papers in this journal
6
NeuroImage
○ 903 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.2%
8
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
9
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.1%
10
Cerebral Cortex
◐ 396 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
11
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 19%
2.7%
12
Cortex
○ 119 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
13
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.4%
14
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.1%
15
Brain Communications
◐ 166 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
16
Neuropsychologia
○ 85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
17
Experimental Brain Research
○ 53 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
18
Brain Sciences
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
19
Brain Research
○ 38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
20
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
● 135 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Neuroscience
○ 97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
22
Cerebral Cortex Communications
◐ 36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
23
Brain Stimulation
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
24
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
25
Progress in Neurobiology
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
eneuro
● 439 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
27
Behavioural Brain Research
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
29
Brain
◐ 168 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
Nature Human Behaviour
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.