Cerebellar tDCS alters recalibration but not realignment during visuomotor learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research suggests that the cerebellum is a brain region that is important for motor control as well as motor learning. To further examine the role of the cerebellum in motor learning we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) – a non-invasive brain stimulation technique in which a weak electrical current is applied through the scalp to alter the baseline activity of neurons under the stimulating electrode. In the current study, participants (n=60) completed a prism adaptation task in which they pointed to targets on a touch screen with their right hand before, during, and after adaptation to 17° rightward shifting prisms while undergoing either anodal (+), cathodal (-) or sham tDCS. Our results indicate that, during prism adaptation, cathodal (-) stimulation significantly reduced pointing errors (i.e., recalibration) during the first 40 pointing trials compared to both anodal (+) and sham stimulation. However, there were no significant differences in adaptation after-affects (i.e., spatial realignment) between the three groups. Overall, our findings offer further insight into the role of the cerebellum in motor learning and how tDCS might be used to enhance recovery in patients with cerebellar brain damage. Faculty Mentor: Christopher Striemer Department: Psychology
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".