Evaluating the interaction between cortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits measured by TMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation was first introduced in the late 1980s. Numerous studies have used TMS as an investigational tool to elucidate cortical physiology and to probe cognitive processes. This article introduces TMS paradigms and presents information gathered on cortical neuronal connectivity. TMS paradigms that demonstrate intracortical inhibition include short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI), cortical silence period (cSP) and long interval cortical inhibition (LICI). There are two types of cortical inhibitions from the stimulation of other brain areas, interhemispheric inhibition and cerebellum inhibition. The inhibition of the motor cortex can also be induced through the stimulation of peripheral nerves. This article talks about studies that describe interaction between inhibitory and facilitatory paradigms, the results of which are discussed in terms of cortical physiology and connectivity. The study of the interactions among cortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits may help to elucidate pathophysiology of neurological and psychiatric diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".