Comparing the Effects of 10-Hz Repetitive TMS on Tasks of Visual STM and Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have demonstrated that visual STM (VSTM) and attention are tightly linked processes that share a number of neuroanatomical substrates. Here, we used repetitive TMS (rTMS) along with simultaneous EEG to examine the causal relationship between intraparietal sulcus functioning and performance on tasks of attention and VSTM. Participants performed two tasks in which they were required to attend to or remember colored items over a brief interval, with 10-Hz rTMS applied on some of the trials. Although no overall behavioral changes were observed across either task, rTMS did affect individual performance on both the attention and VSTM tasks in a manner that was predicted by individual differences in baseline performance. Furthermore, rTMS also affected ongoing oscillations in the alpha and beta bands, and these changes were related to the observed change in behavioral performance. The results reveal a causal relationship between intraparietal sulcus activity and tasks measuring both visual attention and VSTM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".