MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987938602 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0000000000000582

Startle and the StartReact Effect: Physiological Mechanisms

2019· review· en· W2987938602 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony N. Carlsen, Dana Maslovat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)BrainstemStartle responseMoro reflexStartle reactionComputer scienceReflexPsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been well documented that a prepared response can be triggered at short latency following the presentation of a loud acoustic stimulus that evokes a reflexive startle response. Different hypotheses have been proposed for this so-called "StartReact" effect, although there is still much debate surrounding the physiological mechanisms involved in the observed reduction in reaction time (RT). In this review, we outline the various neurophysiological explanations underlying the StartReact effect and summarize the data supporting, and at times opposing, each possibility. Collectively, the experimental results do not unequivocally support a single explanation and we suggest the most parsimonious mechanism may involve a hybrid framework involving a distribution of neural pathways. Specifically, we propose that multiple node networks at the cortical, brainstem, and spinal levels are involved in response preparation and initiation, and the relative contributions of these structures depends on the type of stimulus delivered and the type of movement required. This approach may lead to greater understanding of the pathways involved in response preparation, initiation, and execution for both healthy and motor disordered populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207