MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985131182 · doi:10.1177/155005940803900308

Effects of rTMS on an Auditory Oddball Task: A Pilot Study of Cortical Plasticity and the EEG

2008· article· en· W1985131182 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas R. Cooper, Paul B. Fitzgerald, Rodney J. Croft, Daniel J. Upton, Rebecca Segrave, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Jayashri Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceOddball paradigmAudiologyPsychologyNeuroplasticityAlpha (finance)StimulationMedicineEvent-related potentialDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to explore the effects of 1Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on both an EEG index of cortical excitation and inhibition, event-related desynchronization/ synchronization (ERDIS) and on the P300 component of an auditory oddball-induced ERP. Eight normal participants received 15 minutes of 1Hz rTMS at 110% of the resting motor threshold to right DLPFC. ERDIS of alpha and beta bands was measured during an auditory oddball task immediately before and after stimulation. There was significantly less alpha desynchronization post-TMS, and this effect was widespread excepting posterior midline sites. No changes were found to oddball-P300 amplitudes or latencies. In conclusion, the findings of less alpha desynchronization post-TMS are compatible with notions of slow rTMS causing a decrease in cortical excitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207