Variations in corticomotor excitability in response to distal focal thermal stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the effects of thermal stimulation on corticomotor excitability with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants consisted of healthy young adults (n = 20) and seniors (n = 15). Each experimental session consisted of a baseline (BL) assessment, followed by a warming and a cooling protocol. At BL, recordings of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and skin temperature were performed with the index finger covered with a 'neutral' gel pack (24 °C). For warming, the same measurements were performed, but with the index covered with a warmed gel pack (45 °C). The gel pack was kept for 5 min, and the measurements were performed at 1 min during warming and 5 and 10 min post. After a break, participants were tested with the cooling protocol (gel pack 10 °C) by repeating the same sequence as in the warming. RESULTS: The two thermal protocols induced the desired range of skin temperatures (warming = 35-45°; cooling = 13-24°). For MEP modulation, the primary analysis revealed no main effects or interactions, owing to the variability of responses to either warming or cooling stimulation. Further analysis of individual responses revealed that modulation, when present, was short-lasting and was characterized by a depression in about half of the participants. Facilitation was also observed, but only in smaller clusters, especially with cooling (13/35). Modulation in MEP amplitude did not correlate with changes in skin temperature. CONCLUSION: These results are consistent with previous reports regarding variability in response to sensory stimulation protocols. In the case of thermal stimulation, such variability likely reflects individual differences in the influences exerted by thermal afferents centrally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".