MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2572218965 · doi:10.1038/srep40007

Thermal grill conditioning: Effect on contact heat evoked potentials

2017· article· en· W2572218965 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine R. Jutzeler, Freda M. Warner, Johann Wanek, Armin Curt, John L. K. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversität ZürichEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungMichael Smith Health Research BCNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConditioningThermalNeuroscienceThermodynamicsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 'thermal grill illusion' (TGI) is a unique cutaneous sensation of unpleasantness, induced through the application of interlacing warm and cool stimuli. While previous studies have investigated optimal parameters and subject characteristics to evoke the illusion, our aim was to examine the modulating effect as a conditioning stimulus. A total of 28 healthy control individuals underwent three testing sessions on separate days. Briefly, 15 contact heat stimuli were delivered to the right hand dorsum, while the left palmar side of the hand was being conditioned with either neutral (32 °C), cool (20 °C), warm (40 °C), or TGI (20/40 °C). Rating of perception (numeric rating scale: 0-10) and evoked potentials (i.e., N1 and N2P2 potentials) to noxious contact heat stimuli were assessed. While cool and warm conditioning decreased cortical responses to noxious heat, TGI conditioning increased evoked potential amplitude (N1 and N2P2). In line with other modalities of unpleasant conditioning (e.g., sound, visual, and olfactory stimulation), cortical and possibly sub-cortical modulation may underlie the facilitation of contact heat evoked potentials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207