MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949238665 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.11

Abstract 11: Targeted Training of a Motor-parietal Circuit Improves Its Behavioral Output

2017· article· en· W2949238665 on OpenAlexaff
Steven C. Cramer, Robert J. Zhou, Morgan L. Ingemanson, John J Choi, Katherine Wu, Arshdeep Kaur, Fareshte Erani, Derek Z. Yang, Nikhita Khaturi, Jessica M. Cassidy, Walt Scacchi, Lucy Dodakian, Alison McKenzie, Cristina Videira Lopes

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsStan Cassidy Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)ElectroencephalographyContext (archaeology)Motor learningMedicinePosterior parietal cortexMotor cortexNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Emerging brain mapping methods measure function of individual brain circuits and have the potential to predict a patient’s gains and needs in the context of stroke rehabilitation. We recently described a motor-parietal circuit underlying visuomotor tracking and defined an EEG coherence measure (reflecting connectivity) that predicts visuomotor learning. Here we test the hypothesis that this EEG metric predicts visuomotor learning after stroke. Methods: After baseline dense-array resting EEG, patients with chronic hemiparetic stroke were provided with a home-based gaming system. During 9 half-hour training sessions, patients played games in which the stroke-affected arm tracked objects moving on the tabletop. Games were implemented using augmented reality, which we have found has advantages for motor training and in which virtual objects are projected into the real world and modified during game play. Results: Subjects (n=12) had affected arm Box&Blocks score of 15±12 and were 35±26 mo post-stroke. Visuomotor tracking improved significantly: on a standardized visuomotor test using the gaming system, scores increased from 60.5±11.5% to 74.0±3.2% (p=0.003). Gains were specific, as other behaviors were unchanged. Individual gains in visuomotor tracking score were predicted by the EEG connectivity metric from our prior study, coherence between leads overlying ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1i) and ipsilesional lateral parietal region in the high beta (20-30 Hz) range, with higher connectivity predicting greater visuomotor tracking gains (r=0.61, p=0.037). This too was specific, as connectivity between M1i and other brain areas did not predict gains. Secondary analysis found that baseline visuomotor tracking scores correlated with several EEG connectivity measures, all inversely and all between M1i and contralesional regions. Conclusions: We found that (1) training that targets a specific brain circuit improves behavioral output of that circuit, and (2) an EEG measure of brain connectivity within that circuit predicts these behavioral gains--both with specificity. This approach may be useful for many neural circuits and their respective rehabilitation-related behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→