Visual Contrast Gain Control in Migraine: Measures of Visual Cortical Excitability and Inhibition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the extent to which migraineurs demonstrate interictal visual cortical hyperexcitability as a result of poor inhibitory control in the visual system. We employed a well-established psychophysical measure of inhibition, visual contrast gain control. The task involved detecting a briefly presented target that was superimposed on a highly excitable high contrast masking pattern. The strength of inhibition was assessed by comparing target detection thresholds with and without the operation of gain controls. Migraineurs with and without aura (n=25, n=22, respectively) were compared with those with no history of migraine (n=25). Our results do not indicate a loss of inhibition in migraine; the strength of inhibitory feedback contrast gain controls was similar between migraineurs and controls. We did however, find a statistically greater masking effect in migraineurs compared with controls in the zero delay condition, suggesting cortical hyperexcitability in migraine. Possible mechanisms of cortical hyperexcitability are discussed in light of the results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it