Left cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates the onset of inhibition of return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 20 years our knowledge of functional role of the cerebellum has evolved from that of a structure strictly involved in coordinating motor outputs, to one that is also heavily engaged in cognitive functions, including attention. Specifically, previous patient work indicates that cerebellar damage slows rapid shifts of reflexive covert (i.e. without moving your eyes) attention, as well as the onset of inhibition of return (IOR). In addition, recent fMRI studies suggest that the left lateral cerebellum may play an important role in covert attention through its connections with the frontoparietal attention network in the right cerebral hemisphere.In the current study we further examined the role of cerebellum in covert attention using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) – a non-invasive brain stimulation technique – to in which a weak electrical current is applied to electrodes on the scalp to induce changes in baseline neural activity in the underlying cortex. Participants (n=23) completed a reflexive covert attention task using non-predictive peripheral cues and stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 50, 100, 300, and 600ms before, during, and after either anodal (+), cathodal (-), or sham tDCS applied to the left cerebellum (2mA for 20min). Results indicated that active tDCS stimulation facilitated the onset of IOR at the longest SOA compared to sham stimulation. When combined with recent patient and fMRI data, our results provide further converging evidence that the left lateral cerebellum plays an important role in reflexive covert visual attention. Discipline: Psychology (Honours) Faculty Mentor: Dr. Christopher Striemer
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".