MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318775170 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32834d8806

Influence of area 5 on interhemispheric inhibition

2011· article· en· W2318775170 on OpenAlexafffund
Azra Premji, Chris Zapallow, Philemon Tsang, Richard Tang, Mark F. Jacobs, Aimee J. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brodmann's area 5 is implicated in the sensorimotor control of hand movement in humans and nonhuman primates. However, little is known about the influence of area 5 on the neural circuitry within the primary motor cortex that underpins hand control. The present study investigated the neural circuitry of interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) that exists between homologous muscle representations in the motor cortex. Using paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, IHI was probed from the left-to-right hemisphere and vice versa for the first dorsal interosseous muscle of the hand at short (10 ms) and long (40 ms) latencies before and for up to 1 h after continuous θ-burst stimulation over left hemisphere area 5. The results indicate that continuous θ-burst over area 5 increases IHI at short latencies in the left hand (left-to-right inhibition) from 5-20 and 45-60 min after stimulation. Short latency inhibition in the right hand and bilateral long latency inhibition remain unaltered. The data indicate that area 5 influences the IHI that exists between the representations of the hand muscles. This effect occurs ipsilateral to the left area 5, suggesting that effects are mediated through changes in the excitability of transcallosal neurons originating in the left motor cortex.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207