The Effects of Pulse Configuration on Magnetic Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study is presented in which the authors have examined the effects of pulse configuration, stimulation intensity, and coil current direction during magnetic stimulation. Using figure-8 and circular coils, the median nerve was stimulated at the cubital fossa and at the wrist of 10 healthy volunteers, and the response amplitude and site of stimulation were determined. The key findings of this study are in agreement with other researchers' findings and confirm that biphasic stimulating pulses produce significantly higher M-wave amplitudes than monophasic stimulating pulses for the same stimulus intensity. Mean response amplitudes for biphasic stimuli applied by both coils at the elbow and wrist are consistently higher for the normal current direction. Mean response amplitudes for monophasic pulses are almost always higher for reversed currents. The site for effective stimulation (the position of the virtual cathode) cannot be defined within a fixed distance from the center of the coil (3 to 4 cm), as has been suggested by other researchers, but was found to vary depending on the coil current amplitude and direction as well as the degree of inhomogeneity of the tissues surrounding the nerve. There is a statistically significant relationship between virtual cathode shift and stimulus intensity for biphasic and monophasic pulses. Reversing the coil current direction has no statistically significant effect on the virtual cathode position. Virtual cathode shifts can be measured for biphasic and monophasic stimulations using a figure-8 coil at the wrist and the elbow. However, such a shift is difficult to determine with a circular coil.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".