Influence of post-stroke fatigue on reaction times and corticospinal excitability during movement preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Reduced corticospinal excitability at rest is associated with post-stroke fatigue (PSF). However, it is not known if corticospinal excitability prior to a movement is also altered in fatigue which may then influence subsequent behaviour. We hypothesized that the levels of PSF can be explained by differences in modulation of corticospinal excitability during movement preparation. METHODS: 73 stroke survivors performed an auditory reaction time task. Corticospinal excitability was measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Fatigue was quantified using the fatigue severity scale. The effect of time and fatigue on corticospinal excitability and reaction time was analysed using a mixed effects model. RESULTS: Those with greater levels of PSF showed reduced suppression of corticospinal excitability during movement preparation and increased facilitation immediately prior to movement onset (β = -0.0066, t = -2.22, p = 0.0263). Greater the fatigue, slower the reaction times the closer the stimulation time to movement onset (β = 0.0024, t = 2.47, p = 0.0159). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of pre-movement modulation of corticospinal excitability in high fatigue may indicate poor sensory processing supporting the sensory attenuation model of fatigue. SIGNIFICANCE: We take a systems-based approach and investigate the motor system and its role in pathological fatigue allowing us to move towards gaining a mechanistic understanding of chronic pathological fatigue.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".