MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115703297 · doi:10.1093/brain/124.5.916

Cortical activation by tactile and painful stimuli in hemispherectomized patients

2001· article· en· W2115703297 on OpenAlexaff
Håkan Olausson

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education
KeywordsSomatosensory systemCorpus callosumStimulationSecondary somatosensory cortexPsychologySensorimotor cortexNeuroscienceSensory stimulation therapyCortex (anatomy)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemispherectomized patients are able to perceive tactile and painful stimuli on their nonparetic as well as paretic body halves. We have used functional MRI to study the cortical mechanisms underlying this preserved somatosensory capacity. Nonpainful brushing and painful heat were applied to the skin of the legs in four hemispherectomized patients and, for comparison, in four normal subjects. Cortical activation was studied with a 1.5 T scanner using a BOLD (blood oxygen level dependent) protocol. All patients rated both the brushing and the heat pain as almost equally intense on each leg and the ratings were similar to those in normals. Brushing on the nonparetic leg activated primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (S1 and S2) in all patients, similar to findings in normals. Brushing on the paretic leg activated S1 in two patients and S2 in one of these patients. Heat pain activated S2, insular cortex and anterior cingulate cortex to a similar degree for both legs, but the activation was weaker in the patients than in the normals. For the individual patient, there was generally no obvious correlation between cortical activation as studied with the BOLD technique and psychophysical performance. The findings from tactile stimulation of the nonparetic leg, that the activation was similar to the contralateral activation in normals, suggest that tactile information processing in the hemisphere contralateral to the stimulation is independent of the corpus callosum. In contrast, the pain activation for the nonparetic leg was weaker than in normals, suggesting that pain activation in the hemisphere contralateral to the stimulation is dependent on transcallosal information processing. The latter finding was corroborated by a subnormal capacity for pain localization on the nonparetic foot in two of the patients. The findings from stimulation of the paretic leg show that areas typically involved in the processing of tactile and painful stimuli can be activated by ipsilateral pathways directly from the periphery. The tactile-evoked ipsilateral S1 activation may be due to subcortical reorganization, since it was not observed in the normal subjects.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207