MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315922182 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32836131ca

Continuous theta-burst stimulation over the primary somatosensory cortex modulates interhemispheric inhibition

2013· article· en· W2315922182 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Zapallow, Mark F. Jacobs, Kevin G.H. Lee, Michael J. Asmussen, Philemon Tsang, Aimee J. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCTBSSomatosensory systemTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceStimulationPrimary motor cortexMotor cortexSomatosensory evoked potentialMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One mechanism thought to mediate hand and upper limb control across motor cortices is called interhemispheric inhibition (IHI). Somatosensory cortices are important in the motor control of the hand, although the neural mechanisms by which somatic loci act are not fully understood. In the present study, we study the possibility that the primary somatosensory cortex (SI) influences IHI as one mechanism to modulate hand control. IHI from the motor cortices was measured before and after continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) was delivered over the left-hemisphere SI. IHI was evoked using paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation and measured using electromyography electrodes over the first dorsal interosseous muscles of both hands at short (10 ms) and long (40 ms) intervals to evoke short interval IHI and long interval IHI, respectively. Measures were taken before and for up to 1 h after 600 pulse cTBS was delivered over SI. Results indicate that cTBS over SI increases short interval IHI in the left hand (i.e. ipsilateral to cTBS) for 45-60 min after stimulation. These results indicate that SI is indeed able to modify IHI, and this is therefore one neural mechanism by which SI may influence hand control.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207