Effects of short-latency afferent inhibition on short-interval intracortical inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral nerve stimulation inhibits the motor cortex, and the process has been termed short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of ∼20 ms. The objective of the present study was to test how SAI interacts with short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) under different stimulation conditions. We studied 20 healthy volunteers. Surface electromyogram was recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle. Using paired- and triple-pulse paradigms, we investigated how SAI interacts with SICI under these different conditions. The effects of different conditioning stimulus (CS) intensities (0.6-0.9 active motor threshold), SAI latencies (23 and 25 ms), and ISIs (2 and 3 ms) for SICI were examined in rest and active conditions. SAI had inhibitory interactions with SICI at different CS intensities for rest or active SICI, at SAI latencies of 23 and 25 ms. This interaction occurred at weak CS intensities for SICI when there was no inhibition, and SICI became facilitatory in the presence of SAI. This can be explained by SICI inhibiting SAI and not by saturation of inhibition. The interaction between SAI and SICI was greater for SICI at ISI of 3 ms than for ISI of 2 ms, suggesting that different circuits may be activated at these ISIs. We conclude that SAI and SICI have inhibitory interactions that are influenced by factors such as ISI and muscle activities, which should be considered in design and interpretation of cortical interaction studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".