MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010617174 · doi:10.1152/jn.91295.2008

Differential Effects of Cognitive Demand on Human Cortical Activation Associated With Vibrotactile Stimulation

2009· article· en· W2010617174 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Claire Albanese, Emma G. Duerden, V. Bohotin, Pierre Rainville, Gary H. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Somatosensory systemNeurosciencePsychologyStimulationSensory stimulation therapySecondary somatosensory cortexPerceptionSensory systemAudiologyPosterior parietal cortexCognitionCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This event-related functional MRI study examines the neural correlates of vibrotactile sensation within the context of different psychophysical demands. Nine subjects received vibrotactile stimuli on the right volar forearm during detection, localization, and passive tasks. In the detection task, subjects indicated the offset (end) of each stimulus by pressing a response key with their left hand. In the localization task, subjects identified the location of the stimulus ("distal?" or "proximal?") by pressing the appropriate response key 4 s after the end of the stimulus. In the passive task, subjects received the same vibrotactile stimuli, but no response was required. Analysis of stimulus-evoked activity compared with the resting baseline period revealed significant bilateral secondary somatosensory cortex activation for all three tasks. However, only in the offset-detection and localization tasks was stimulus-evoked activation observed in other expected areas of tactile processing, such as contralateral primary somatosensory cortex neighboring the posterior parietal cortex (SI/PPC) and in bilateral anterior insular cortex (aIC). During the localization task, we identified vibrotactile-evoked activation in the right aIC, which was maintained after the termination of the stimulus. Results suggest that vibrotactile-related activation within SI/PPC and aIC is enhanced by the increased levels of attention and cognitive demands required by the detection and localization tasks. Activation of aIC not only during vibrotactile stimulation, but also during the poststimulus delay in the localization trials, is consistent with the growing literature linking this area with the perception and short-term memory of tactile information.

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)0.002
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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207