MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Double‐pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over the frontal eye field facilitates triggering of memory‐guided saccades

2001· article· en· W2020837475 on OpenAlexaff
Marius Wipfli, Jacques Felblinger, Urs P. Mosimann, Christian Heß, Thomas E. Schläepfer, René M. Müri

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSaccadeTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceSupplementary eye fieldPsychologyLatency (audio)StimulationEye movementInterstimulus intervalComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigated the influence of double-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) on memory-guided saccade triggering. Double pulses with interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 35, 50, 65 or 80 ms were applied over the right frontal eye field (FEF) and as control over the occipital cortex. A significant dTMS effect was found exclusively for contralateral saccades; latency of memory-guided saccades was reduced after FEF stimulation with an ISI of 50 ms compared to latency without stimulation. This effect proved to be specific for the ISI of 50 ms over the FEF because control stimulation with the same ISI over the occipital cortex had no significant effect on latency of memory-guided saccades. The results of our study showed that, by using an appropriate ISI, dTMS is able to facilitate contralateral saccade triggering by stimulating the FEF. This suggests that TMS interferes specifically with saccade triggering mechanisms, probably by acting on presaccadic neurons of the FEF.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207