MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092730528 · doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.2.132

Motor maps, seizures, and behaviour.

2008· article· en· W2092730528 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G. Campbell Teskey, Marie‐H. Monfils, Corey Flynn, Nicole A. Young, Francine van Rooyen, Luke C. Henry, Lana J. Ozen, Amy Henderson, Aylin Y. Reid, Andrew Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsNeuroscienceIctalEpilepsyMotor activityPsychologyReversingCognitive psychologyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atypically organised motor maps have been described in some people with epilepsy and we have modelled this in rats. Our goal is to more fully understand the mechanisms responsible for seizure-induced functional brain reorganisation and to reverse their effects. Here we present an overview of the relationship between neocortical motor maps, seizures, and interictal behaviour. To begin we summarise the observations of atypical motor maps with epilepsy and in animal models following experimentally induced seizures. Our novel experiments have established that motor map expansion is linked to a functional alteration of motor behaviour. Evidence for some of the putative brain mechanisms responsible for motor map size is discussed. Our successes reversing seizure-induced map expansion by two different methods are also briefly reviewed. Lastly, unanswered questions for possible future experimentation are posed.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207