Disruption of Locomotor Adaptation with Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Over the Motor Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locomotor patterns are adapted on a trial-and-error basis to account for predictable dynamics. Once a walking pattern is adapted, the new calibration is stored and must be actively de-adapted. Here, we tested the hypothesis that storage of newly acquired ankle adaptation in walking is dependent on corticospinal mechanisms. Subjects were exposed to an elastic force that resisted ankle dorsiflexion during treadmill walking. Ankle movement was adapted in <30 strides, leading to after-effects on removal of the force. We used a crossover design to study the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1), compared with normal adaptation without TMS. In addition, we tested the effects of TMS over the primary sensory cortex (S1) and premotor cortex (PMC) during adaptation. We found that M1 TMS, but not S1 TMS and PMC TMS, reduced the size of ankle dorsiflexion after-effects. The results suggest that suprathreshold M1 TMS disrupted the initial processes underlying locomotor adaptation. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that corticospinal mechanisms underlie storage of ankle adaptation in walking.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".