MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086304426 · doi:10.1152/jn.01046.2009

Task-Dependent Modulation of Inputs to Proximal Upper Limb Following Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex

2010· article· en· W2086304426 on OpenAlexaff
Lynley V. Bradnam, Cathy M. Stinear, Gwyn N. Lewis, Winston D. Byblow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationTranscranial direct-current stimulationPrimary motor cortexStimulationMotor cortexNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicineStroke (engine)Silent period

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cathodal transcranial DC stimulation (c-tDCS) suppresses excitability of primary motor cortex (M1) controlling contralateral hand muscles. This study assessed whether c-tDCS would have similar effects on ipsi- and contralateral M1 projections to a proximal upper limb muscle. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of left M1 was used to elicit motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the left and right infraspinatus (INF) muscle immediately before and after c-tDCS of left M1, and at 20 and 40 min, post-c-tDCS. TMS was delivered as participants preactivated each INF in isolation (left, right) or both INF together (bilateral). After c-tDCS, ipsilateral MEPs in left INF and contralateral MEPs in right INF were suppressed in the left task but not in the bilateral or right tasks, indicative of task-dependent modulation. Ipsilateral silent period duration in the left INF was reduced after c-tDCS, indicative of altered transcallosal inhibition. These findings may have implications for the use of tDCS as an adjunct to therapy for the proximal upper limb after 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207