Alertness fluctuations during task performance modulate cortical evoked responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been widely used in human cognitive neuroscience to examine the causal role of distinct cortical areas in perceptual, cognitive and motor functions. However, it is widely acknowledged that the effects of focal cortical stimulation on behaviour can vary substantially between participants and even from trial to trial within individuals. Here we asked whether spontaneous fluctuations in alertness can account for the variability in behavioural and neurophysiological responses to TMS. We combined single-pulse TMS with neural recording via electroencephalography (EEG) to quantify changes in motor and cortical reactivity with fluctuating levels of alertness defined objectively on the basis of ongoing brain activity. We observed rapid, non-linear changes in TMS-evoked neural responses – specifically, motor evoked potentials and TMS-evoked cortical potentials – as EEG activity indicated decreasing levels of alertness, even while participants remained awake and responsive in the behavioural task. IMPACT STATEMENT A substantial proportion of inter-trial variability in neurophysiological responses to TMS is due to spontaneous fluctuations in alertness, which should be controlled for during experimental and clinical applications of TMS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".