Must be [TDCS] on the brain, that's got me [moving] this way: TDCS of PPC affects movement execution but not imagination or perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is thought that action execution, perception, and imagination share a common motor pathway. One area of the brain thought to be involved in each of these processes is the posterior parietal cortex (PPC). The present study investigated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the PPC and the subsequent influence on execution, perception, and imagination of a cyclical aiming task. tDCS is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, that can increase or decrease activity in a targeted cortical region. Participants received anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation on separate days. During each session, participants executed, imagined and perceived cyclical aiming movements of the hand before and after tDCS. The amplitude of the movement and the widths of the targets were varied to create 3 different movement environments for the 3 index of difficulties of 2, 3, and 4. It was found that movement time for each of the tasks was altered following tDCS. Specifically, results indicated that the correlations between movement time and movement difficulty in movement execution were significantly lower following cathodal stimulation. Performance in the execution task was not affected by anodal or sham stimulation. In addition, no stimulation protocol affected movement imagination and perception. These results will be discussed with respect to the role that the PPC plays in motor behavior. Future work will explore the roles of tDCS on the PPC and other areas of the brain, as well as potential use of these tasks and techniques for better assessing and understanding movement disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".