MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282174384 · doi:10.1152/jn.00506.2015

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex on vibrotactile detection and discrimination

2016· article· en· W2282174384 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Labbé, El-Mehdi Meftah, C. Elaine Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSomatosensory systemNeuroscienceTranscranial direct-current stimulationStimulationPsychologySomatosensory evoked potentialAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of primary somatosensory cortex (S1) has been shown to enhance tactile spatial acuity, but there is little information as to the underlying neuronal mechanisms. We examined vibrotactile perception on the distal phalanx of the middle finger before, during, and after contralateral S1 tDCS [a-, cathodal (c)-, and sham (s)-tDCS]. The experiments tested our shift-gain hypothesis, which predicted that a-tDCS would decrease vibrotactile detection and discrimination thresholds (leftward shift of the stimulus-response function with increased gain/slope) relative to s-tDCS, whereas c-tDCS would have the opposite effects (relative to s-tDCS). The results showed that weak a-tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) led to a reduction in both vibrotactile detection and discrimination thresholds to 73-76% of baseline during the application of the stimulation in subjects categorized as responders. These effects persisted after the end of a-tDCS but were absent 30 min later. Most, but not all, subjects showed a decrease in threshold (8/12 for detection; 9/12 for discrimination). Intersubject variability was explained by a ceiling effect in the discrimination task. c-tDCS had no significant effect on either detection or discrimination threshold. Taken together, our results supported our shift-gain hypothesis for a-tDCS but not c-tDCS.

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207