Abnormal Phase Coupling in Parkinson’s Disease and Normalization Effects of Subthreshold Vestibular Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human brain is a highly dynamic structure requiring dynamic coordination between different neural systems to perform numerous cognitive and behavioural tasks. Emerging perspectives on basal ganglia (BG) and thalamic functions have highlighted their role in facilitating and mediating information transmission among cortical regions. Thus, changes in BG and thalamic structures can induce aberrant modulation of cortico-cortical interactions. Recent work in deep brain stimulation (DBS) has demonstrated that externally applied electrical current to BG structures can have multiple downstream effects in large-scale brain networks. In this work, we identified EEG-based altered resting-state cortical functional connectivity in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and examined effects of dopaminergic medication and electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique capable of stimulating the BG and thalamus through vestibular pathways. Resting EEG was collected from 16 PD subjects and 18 age-matched, healthy controls (HC) in four conditions: sham (no stimulation), EVS1 (4-8 Hz multisine), EVS2 (50-100 Hz multisine) and EVS3 (100-150 Hz multisine). The mean, variability, and entropy were extracted from time-varying phase locking value (PLV), a nonlinear measure of pairwise functional connectivity, to probe abnormal cortical couplings in the PD subjects. We found the mean PLV of Cz and C3 electrodes were important for discrimination between PD and HC subjects. In addition, the PD subjects exhibited lower variability and entropy of PLV (mostly in theta and alpha bands) compared to the controls, which were correlated with their clinical characteristics. While levodopa medication was effective in normalizing the mean PLV only, all EVS stimuli normalized the mean, variability and entropy of PLV in the PD subject, with the exact extent and duration of improvement a function of stimulus type. These findings provide evidence demonstrating both low- and high-frequency EVS exert widespread influences on cortico-cortical connectivity, likely via subcortical activation. The improvement observed in PD in a stimulus-dependent manner suggests that EVS with optimized parameters may provide a new non-invasive means for neuromodulation of functional brain networks.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".