MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modulation of cortical excitability during action observation

2000· article· en· W2044236523 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio P. Strafella, Tomáš Paus

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationFacilitationNeuroscienceMotor cortexPsychologyStimulationPrimary motor cortexStimulus (psychology)Evoked potentialBicepsElectrophysiologyInterstimulus intervalMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to examine changes in cortical excitability during action observation. We stimulated the left primary motor cortex (M1) of eight healthy volunteers during rest, observation of handwriting and observation of arm movements. Motor evoked potentials (MEP) were recorded from the first dorsal intereosseous (FDI) and biceps (BIC) muscles. Our results showed that action observation induced a facilitation of the MEP amplitude evoked by the single test stimulus and reduced intracortical inhibition and facilitation at 3 ms and 12 ms interstimulus intervals (ISIs), respectively, during paired-pulse stimulation. These changes were specific for the muscle involved in the observed action. Our study presents further evidence that motor excitability is significantly modified when the subject observes an action performed by another individual.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations510
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207