↓ Skip to main content

Premotor cortex is critical for goal-directed actions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Premotor cortex is critical for goal-directed actions
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina M. Gremel, Rui M. Costa

Abstract

Shifting between motor plans is often necessary for adaptive behavior. When faced with changing consequences of one's actions, it is often imperative to switch from automatic actions to deliberative and controlled actions. The pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) in primates, akin to the premotor cortex (M2) in mice, has been implicated in motor learning and planning, and action switching. We hypothesized that M2 would be differentially involved in goal-directed actions, which are controlled by their consequences vs. habits, which are more dependent on their past reinforcement history and less on their consequences. To investigate this, we performed M2 lesions in mice and then concurrently trained them to press the same lever for the same food reward using two different schedules of reinforcement that differentially bias towards the use of goal-directed versus habitual action strategies. We then probed whether actions were dependent on their expected consequence through outcome revaluation testing. We uncovered that M2 lesions did not affect the acquisition of lever-pressing. However, in mice with M2 lesions, lever-pressing was insensitive to changes in expected outcome value following goal-directed training. However, habitual actions were intact. We confirmed a role for M2 in goal-directed but not habitual actions in separate groups of mice trained on the individual schedules biasing towards goal-directed versus habitual actions. These data indicate that M2 is critical for actions to be updated based on their consequences, and suggest that habitual action strategies may not require processing by M2 and the updating of motor plans.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 192 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 23%
Researcher 42 20%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Master 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 25 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 60 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 26%
Psychology 29 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 33 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,153,199
of 26,210,734 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#118
of 1,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,827
of 293,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#11
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,210,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.