MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521762363 · doi:10.3389/fncir.2016.00073

Characterizing and Modulating Brain Circuitry through Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Electroencephalography

2016· review· en· W2521762363 on OpenAlexafffund
Faranak Farzan, Marine Vernet, Mouhsin M. Shafi, Alexander Rotenberg, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Álvaro Pascual‐Leone

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neural Circuits · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionFondation FyssenHarvard UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHarvard CatalystSidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation
KeywordsElectroencephalographyTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceNeuromodulationPsychologyBrain activity and meditationEEG-fMRIStandardizationNeuroimagingHuman brainBrain stimulationComputer scienceStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concurrent combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) is a powerful technology for characterizing and modulating brain networks across developmental, behavioral, and disease states. Given the global initiatives in mapping the human brain, recognition of the utility of this technique is growing across neuroscience disciplines. Importantly, TMS-EEG offers translational biomarkers that can be applied in health and disease, across the lifespan, and in humans and animals, bridging the gap between animal models and human studies. However, to utilize the full potential of TMS-EEG methodology, standardization of TMS-EEG study protocols is needed. In this article, we review the principles of TMS-EEG methodology, factors impacting TMS-EEG outcome measures, and the techniques for preventing and correcting artifacts in TMS-EEG data. To promote the standardization of this technique, we provide comprehensive guides for designing TMS-EEG studies and conducting TMS-EEG experiments. We conclude by reviewing the application of TMS-EEG in basic, cognitive and clinical neurosciences, and evaluate the potential of this emerging technology in brain research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations181
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Neural CircuitsSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207