Facilitatory conditioning of the supplementary motor area in humans enhances the corticophrenic responsiveness to transcranial magnetic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspiratory loading in awake humans is associated with electroencephalographic signs of supplementary motor area (SMA) activation. To provide evidence for a functional connection between SMA and the diaphragm representation in the primary motor cortex (M1(DIA)), we tested the hypothesis that modulating SMA activity using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) would alter M1(DIA) excitability. Amplitude and latency of diaphragm motor evoked potentials (MEP(DIA)), evoked through single pulse M1(DIA) stimulation, before and up to 16 min after SMA stimulation, were taken as indicators of M1(DIA) excitability. MEPs from the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI, MEP(FDI)) served as a control. Four SMA conditioning sessions were performed in random order at 1-wk intervals. Two aimed at increasing SMA activity (5 and 10 Hz, both at 110% of FDI active motor threshold; referred to as 5Hz and 10Hz, respectively), and two aimed at decreasing it (1 Hz either at 110% of FDI active or resting motor threshold, referred to as aMT or rMT, respectively). The 5Hz protocol increased MEP(DIA) and MEP(FDI) amplitudes with a maximum 11-16 min poststimulation (P = 0.04 and P = 0.02, respectively). The 10Hz protocol increased MEP(FDI) amplitude with a similar time course (P = 0.03) but did not increase MEP(DIA) amplitude (P = 0.32). Both aMT and rMT failed to decrease MEP(DIA) or MEP(FDI) amplitudes (P = 0.23 and P = 0.90, respectively, for diaphragm and P = 0.48 and P = 0.14 for FDI). MEP(DIA) and MEP(FDI) latencies were unaffected by rTMS. These results demonstrate that 5-Hz rTMS over the SMA can increase the excitability of M1(DIA). These observations are consistent with the hypothesis of a functional connection between SMA and M1(DIA).
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".