Evaluating developmental motor plasticity with paired afferent stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Brain plasticity mechanisms are probably different in children but remain poorly understood. Paired afferent stimulation (PAS) combines peripheral sensory stimulation with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of primary motor cortex to induce rapid, reversible, topographically specific increases in primary motor cortex excitability suggestive of long-term potentiation in adults. Our aim was to determine frequency, characteristics, age effects, and reproducibility of PAS in school-age children. METHOD: Typically developing right-handed children (6-18y) were recruited. Median nerve stimulation was delivered 25ms before suprathreshold primary motor cortex stimulation (0.2Hz, 7.5min). Primary outcome was changed in the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) at five time points after PAS (0, 15, 30, 45, 75min) expressed as area under the curve. Reproducibility was evaluated. Secondary outcomes included stimulus response curves and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Of 28 children (20 males, mean age 12y), 64% demonstrated PAS effects (11 definite, seven probable). PAS effects were sustained across all time points to 75min (p=0.004). Stimulus response curve scores increased after PAS (n=9, p=0.02). PAS effect and age were not correlated. PAS was highly reproducible (p=0.925, r=0.283). Tolerability was favorable without adverse events. INTERPRETATION: PAS effects are present and reproducible in children. Pediatric PAS paradigms appear safe and tolerable. PAS may provide insight into endogenous developmental plasticity, informing future studies in children with cerebral palsy and other motor disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".