MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suppression of ipsilateral motor cortex facilitates motor skill learning

2009· article· en· W2051600189 on OpenAlexaff
Masahito Kobayashi, Hugo Théoret, A. Pascual–Leone

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNIH Clinical CenterNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeurorehabilitationMotor learningMotor cortexPsychologyMotor skillStimulationNeurosciencePrimary motor cortexPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor controlMedicineRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary motor cortex (M1) plays a critical role in early aspects of motor skill learning. Given the notion of inter-hemispheric competition, unilateral disruption of M1 may increase excitability of the unaffected motor cortex and thus improve motor learning with the ipsilateral hand. We applied slow-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) before the initiation of practice of a simple motor skill. Participants were randomly divided into three stimulation groups: (i) ipsilateral M1; (ii) contralateral M1; and (iii) Cz (control site). The mean execution time and error rate were recorded in four sessions distributed over 2 days. Disruption of M1 with rTMS slowed down skill acquisition with the contralateral hand, albeit non significantly, but paradoxically enhanced learning with the ipsilateral hand. This was evidenced by a significant decrease of execution time at the end of day 1 in the group that received rTMS over the ipsilateral M1 compared with both control groups (Cz and contralateral M1 stimulation). This supports the notion of inter-hemispheric competition and provides novel insights that may be applicable to neurorehabilitation.

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)0.003
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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations63
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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