Frequency‐dependent and montage‐based differences in phosphene perception thresholds via transcranial alternating current stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that applying transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) to the scalp can generate artefactual visual perceptions of flashing or shimmering light known as phosphenes. The thresholds for generating these phosphenes have been used by international standards bodies to provide conservative estimates of the field strength required to interfere with human neural functioning and set safety limits accordingly. However, the precise relationship between electric currents and phosphene perception thresholds remains uncertain. The present study used tACS to systematically investigate the effects of the location and the frequency of stimulation on phosphene perception thresholds. These thresholds were obtained from 24 participants using a within-subject design as a function of scalp stimulation sites (FPz-Cz versus Oz-Cz) and stimulation frequency (2-30 Hz in steps of 2 Hz). Phosphene perception thresholds were consistently lower for FPz-Cz stimulation, and regardless of tACS location were lowest for 16 Hz stimulation. Threshold variation between participants was very small, which is meaningful when setting standards based on phosphenes. Bioelectromagnetics. 2019;40:365-374. © 2019 Bioelectromagnetics Society.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".