MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074586167 · doi:10.1152/jn.00074.2014

Exploring the specific time course of interhemispheric inhibition between the human primary sensory cortices

2014· article· en· W2074586167 on OpenAlexafffund
Sonia M. Brodie, Anica Villamayor, Michael R. Borich, Lara A. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsSomatosensory systemSomatosensory evoked potentialNeurosciencePsychologyStimulationElectrophysiologySensory systemElectroencephalographyInterstimulus intervalNeurophysiologyAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neurophysiological mechanism of interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) between the human primary sensory cortices (S1s) is poorly understood. Here we used a paired median nerve somatosensory evoked potential protocol to observe S1-S1 IHI from the dominant to the nondominant hemisphere with electroencephalography. In 10 healthy, right-handed individuals, we compared mean peak-to-peak amplitudes of five somatosensory evoked potential components (P14/N20, N20/P25, P25/N30, N30/P40, and P40/N60) recorded over the right S1 after synchronous versus asynchronous stimulation of the right and left median nerves. Asynchronous conditioning + test stimuli (CS+TS) were delivered at interstimulus intervals of 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 ms. We found that, in relation to synchronous stimulation, when a CS to the left S1 preceded a TS to the right S1 at the short intervals (15 and 20 ms) the amplitude of the cortical N20/P25 complex was significantly depressed, whereas at the longer intervals (25, 30, and 35 ms) significant inhibition was observed for the thalamocortical P14/N20 as well as the cortical N20/P25 components. We conclude that the magnitude of S1 IHI appears to depend on the temporal asynchrony of bilateral inputs and the specific timing is likely reflective of a direct transcallosal mechanism. Employing a method that enables direct S1 IHI to be reliably quantified may provide a novel tool to assess potential IHI imbalances in individuals with neurological damage, such as stroke.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207