The Supplementary Motor Area Exerts a Tonic Excitatory Influence on Corticospinal Projections to Phrenic Motoneurons in Awake Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In humans, cortical mechanisms can interfere with autonomic breathing. Respiratory-related activation of the supplementary motor area (SMA) has been documented during voluntary breathing and in response to inspiratory constraints. The SMA could therefore participate in the increased resting state of the respiratory motor system during wake (i.e. "wakefulness drive to breathe"). METHODS: The SMA was conditioned by continuous theta burst magnetic stimulation (cTBS, inhibitory) and 5 Hz conventional rTMS (5 Hz, excitatory). The ensuing effects were described in terms of the diaphragm motor evoked response (DiMEPs) to single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex. DiMEPs were recorded at baseline, and at 3 time-points ("post1", "post2", "post3") up to 15 minutes following conditioning of the SMA. RESULTS: cTBS reduced the amplitude of DiMEPs from 327.5 ± 159.8 µV at baseline to 243.3 ± 118.7 µV, 217.8 ± 102.9 µV and 240.6 ± 123.9 µV at post 1, post 2 and post 3, respectively (F = 6.341, p = 0.002). 5 Hz conditioning increased the amplitude of DiMEPs from 184.7 ± 96.5 µV at baseline to 270.7 ± 135.4 µV at post 3 (F = 4.844, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The corticospinal pathway to the diaphragm can be modulated in both directions by conditioning the SMA. This suggests that the baseline respiratory activity of the SMA represents an equipoise from which it is possible to move in either direction. The resting corticofugal outflow from the SMA to phrenic motoneurones that this study evidences could putatively contribute to the wakefulness drive to breathe.
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) | 0.003 | 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".