MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neck muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human frontal eye fields

2011· article· en· W2170932156 on OpenAlexafffund
Samanthi C. Goonetilleke, Paul L. Gribble, Seyed M. Mirsattari, Timothy J. Doherty, Brian D. Corneil

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationSaccadeNeurosciencePsychologyStimulationGazeEye movementFrontal eye fieldsBrainstemEvoked potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) provides a non-invasive means of investigating brain function. Whereas TMS of the human frontal eye fields (FEFs) does not induce saccades, electrical stimulation of the monkey FEF evokes eye-head gaze shifts, with neck muscle responses evoked at stimulation levels insufficient to evoke a saccade. These animal results motivated us to examine whether TMS of the FEF (TMS-FEF) in humans evokes a neck muscle response. Subjects performed memory-guided saccades to the left or right while TMS (two pulses at 20 Hz) was delivered on 30% of trials to the left FEF coincident with saccade instruction. As reported previously, TMS-FEF decreased contralateral saccade reaction times. We simultaneously recorded the activity of splenius capitis (SPL) (an ipsilateral head turner). TMS-FEF evoked a lateralized increase in the activity of the right SPL but not the left SPL, consistent with the recruitment of a contralateral head-turning synergy. In some subjects, the evoked neck muscle response was time-locked to stimulation, whereas in others the evoked response occurred around the time of the saccade. Importantly, evoked responses were greater when TMS was applied to the FEF engaged in contralateral saccade preparation, with even greater evoked responses preceding shorter latency saccades. These results provide new insights into both the nature of TMS and the human oculomotor system, demonstrating that TMS-FEF engages brainstem oculomotor circuits in a manner consistent with a general role in eye-head gaze orienting. Our results also suggest that pairing neck muscle recordings with TMS-FEF provides a novel way of assaying the covert preparation of oculomotor plans.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207