Paired Associative Stimulation Fails to Induce Plasticity in Freely Behaving Intact Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paired associative stimulation (PAS) has been explored in humans as a noninvasive tool to drive plasticity and promote recovery after neurologic insult. A more thorough understanding of PAS-induced plasticity is needed to fully harness it as a clinical tool. Here, we tested the efficacy of PAS with multiple interstimulus intervals in an awake rat model to study the principles of associative plasticity. Using chronically implanted electrodes in motor cortex and forelimb, we explored PAS parameters to effectively drive plasticity. We assessed changes in corticomotor excitability using a closed-loop, EMG-controlled cortical stimulation paradigm. We tested 11 PAS intervals, chosen to force the coincidence of neuronal activity in the motor cortex and spinal cord of rats with timings relevant to the principles of Hebbian spike timing-dependent plasticity. However, despite a relatively large number of stimulus pairings (300), none of the tested intervals reliably changed corticospinal excitability relative to control conditions. Our results question PAS effectiveness under these conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".