Interaction between genioglossus and diaphragm responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation in awake humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The modulation of activity of the upper airway dilator and respiratory muscles plays a key role in the regulation of ventilation, but little is known about the link between their neuromuscular activation processes in vivo. This study investigated genioglossus and diaphragm responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation applied in different facilitatory conditions. The amplitude and latency of motor-evoked potential responses and the stimulation intensity threshold leading to a motor response (motor threshold) were recorded with stimulation applied at the vertex and anterolateral area in 13 awake normal subjects. Stimuli were applied during inspiration with and without resistance, during expiration with and without maximal tongue protrusion and during deep inspiration. In each stimulation location and condition, no diaphragmatic response was obtained without previous genioglossus activity (diaphragmatic and genioglossus responses latencies during expiration: 18.1 +/- 2.9 and 6.3 +/- 2.6 ms, respectively, mean +/- s.d., P < 0.01). Genioglossus motor-evoked potential amplitude, latency and motor threshold were significantly modified with tongue protrusion with a maximal effect observed for stimulation in the anterolateral area. Deep inspiration was associated with a significant facilitatory effect on both genioglossus and diaphragm motor responses. The facilitatory effects of respiratory and non-respiratory manoeuvres were also observed during focal stimulation where isolated genioglossus responses were observed. Genioglossus and diaphragm differed in their motor threshold both at baseline and following facilitatory manoeuvres. CONCLUSIONS: (1) transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced genioglossus response systematically precedes that of diaphragm; (2) this sequence of activation is not modified by respiratory and non-respiratory manoeuvres; and (3) the genioglossus and diaphragm are differently influenced by these manoeuvres in terms of latency of the motor response and of motor threshold.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".