Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Somatosensory Cortex Modulates Perception of the Tendon Vibration Illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on kinesthetic perception, when applied to the somatosensory cortex, was examined. Further, the facilitatory and inhibitory effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation using different stimulation frequencies were tested. Six female (M age = 32.0 years, SD = 6.7) and nine male (M age = 32.9 years, SD = 6.6) participants were asked to perceive the tendon vibration illusion of the left wrist joint and to replicate the illusion with their right hand. When comparing changes in the corresponding movement amplitude and velocity after three different repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols (sham, 1 Hz inhibitory, and 5 Hz facilitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation), the movement amplitude was found to decrease with the inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, while the movement velocity respectively increased and decreased with the facilitatory and inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. These results confirmed the modulating effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on kinesthetic perception in a single experimental paradigm.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".