Exploring the connectivity between the cerebellum and motor cortex in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal studies have shown that cerebellar projections influence both excitatory and inhibitory neurones in the motor cortex but this connectivity has yet to be demonstrated in human subjects. In human subjects, magnetic or electrical stimulation of the cerebellum 5-7 ms before transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex decreases the TMS-induced motor-evoked potential (MEP), indicating a cerebellar inhibition of the motor cortex (CBI). TMS also reveals inhibitory and excitatory circuits of the motor cortex, including a short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), long-interval intracortical inhibition (LICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF). This study used magnetic cerebellar stimulation to investigate connections between the cerebellum and these cortical circuits. Three experiments were performed on 11 subjects. The first experiment showed that with increasing test stimulus intensities, LICI, CBI and ICF decreased, while SICI increased. The second experiment showed that the presence of CBI reduced SICI and increased ICF. The third experiment showed that the interaction between CBI and LICI reduced CBI. Collectively, these findings suggest that cerebellar stimulation results in changes to both inhibitory and excitatory neurones in the human motor cortex.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".