MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400809087 · doi:10.1152/jn.00260.2016

A combined TMS-EEG study of short-latency afferent inhibition in the motor and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

2016· article· en· W2400809087 on OpenAlexafffund
Yoshihiro Noda, Robin Cash, Reza Zomorrodi, Luís Garcia Dominguez, Faranak Farzan, Tarek K. Rajji, Mera S. Barr, Robert Chen, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Daniel M. Blumberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBrainsWay
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationN100NeuroscienceDorsolateral prefrontal cortexPsychologyMotor cortexElectroencephalographyPrefrontal cortexP200Event-related potentialStimulationCognitionPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combined transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) enables noninvasive neurophysiological investigation of the human cortex. A TMS paradigm of short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) is characterized by attenuation of the motor-evoked potential (MEP) and modulation of N100 of the TMS-evoked potential (TEP) when TMS is delivered to motor cortex (M1) following median nerve stimulation. SAI is a marker of cholinergic activity in the motor cortex; however, the SAI has not been tested from the prefrontal cortex. We aimed to explore the effect of SAI in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). SAI was examined in 12 healthy subjects with median nerve stimulation and TMS delivered to M1 and DLPFC at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) relative to the individual N20 latency. SAI in M1 was tested at the optimal ISI of N20 + 2 ms. SAI in DLPFC was investigated at a range of ISI from N20 + 2 to N20 + 20 ms to explore its temporal profile. For SAI in M1, the attenuation of MEP amplitude was correlated with an increase of TEP N100 from the left central area. A similar spatiotemporal neural signature of SAI in DLPFC was observed with a marked increase of N100 amplitude. SAI in DLPFC was maximal at ISI N20 + 4 ms at the left frontal area. These findings establish the neural signature of SAI in DLPFC. Future studies could explore whether DLPFC-SAI is neurophysiological marker of cholinergic dysfunction in cognitive disorders.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
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 designObservational
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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207