The article says: "In our brains, each finger is represented distinctly from the others; among the study participants, the brain activity pattern corresponding

The article says: "In our brains, each finger is represented distinctly from the others; among the study participants, the brain activity pattern corresponding to each individual finger became more similar (less distinct)." I'm just not sure what the significance of this is. It doesn't seem to tell us much by itself. Maybe it will be more meaningful after further research. (Or maybe I'm just missing something.) My other point regarding the word "representation" was more of a semantics issue. Neural activity in the sensorimotor cortex is the sensorimotor skill itself. I think saying fingers are "represented" in the sensorimotor cortex, while perhaps not technically wrong, is potentially misleading, as it implies a separation between the "representative" and the "represented". The fingers and the sensorimotor cortex are connected, they're part of a system, so changes in sensorimotor skill naturally imply changes in neural activity in the sensorimotor cortex (and, by extension, specific areas of neural activity); you don't need an fMRI to know that, although the fMRI may tell us what changed (at least to the degree that we can measure it). (Although, again, I'm still not really sure what the significance of such changes are.) The headline "Robotic 'Third Thumb' use can alter brain representation of the hand" could just as well be "Robotic 'Third Thumb' use can alter brain activity", which is far less intriguing. Using the word "representation" makes it sound (at least to me) like there's more to it, something between the fingers and their "representations" that is shifting things. Obviously there is some sort of learning process the brain uses to adapt, but just noting changes via fMRI does not, by itself, tell us anything about it. (Again, maybe it will be more meaningful in a greater context after further research.)