MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006914563 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2010.5626840

Effects of TMS coil geometry on stimulation specificity

2010· article· en· W2006914563 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehran Talebinejad, Sam Musallam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationElectromagnetic coilStimulationBiomedical engineeringBrain stimulationFinite element methodComputer scienceMaterials scienceNeuroscienceNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringPsychologyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcranial magnetic stimulation has become an established tool in experimental cognitive neuroscience and has more recently been applied clinically. The current spatial extent of neural activation is several millimeters but with greater specificity, transcranial magnetic stimulation can potentially deliver real time feedback to reinforce or extinguish behavior by exciting or inhibiting localized neural circuits. The specificity of transcranial magnetic stimulation is a function of the stimulation coil geometry. In this paper, a practical multilayer framework for the design of miniaturized stimulation coils is presented. This framework is based on a magnet wire fabricated from 2500 braided ultrafine wires. Effects of coil bending angle on stimulation specificity are examined using realistic finite element method simulations. A novel stimulation coil with one degree of freedom is also proposed that shows improved specificity over the conventional fixed coils. This type of coil could be potentially used as a feedback system for a bidirectional brain machine interface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207