Electrophysiology equipment for reliable study of kHz electrical stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the cellular targets of kHz (1-10 kHz) electrical stimulation remains a pressing topic in neuromodulation because expanding interest in clinical application of kHz stimulation has surpassed mechanistic understanding. The presumed cellular targets of brain stimulation do not respond to kHz frequencies according to conventional electrophysiology theory. Specifically, the low-pass characteristics of cell membranes are predicted to render kHz stimulation inert, especially given the use of limited-duty-cycle biphasic pulses. Precisely because kHz frequencies are considered supra-physiological, conventional instruments designed for neurophysiological studies such as stimulators, amplifiers and recording microelectrodes do not operate reliably at these high rates. Moreover, for pulsed waveforms, the signal frequency content is well above the pulse repetition rate. Thus, the very tools used to characterize the effects of kHz electrical stimulation may themselves be confounding factors. We illustrate custom equipment design that supports reliable electrophysiological recording during kHz-rate stimulation. Given the increased importance of kHz stimulation in clinical domains and compelling possibilities that mechanisms of actions may reflect yet undiscovered neurophysiological phenomena, attention to suitable performance of electrophysiological equipment is pivotal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
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".