Visual cortex cTBS increases mixed percept duration while a-tDCS has no effect on binocular rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuromodulation of the primary visual cortex using anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can alter visual perception and enhance neuroplasticity. However, the mechanisms that underpin these effects are currently unknown. When applied to the motor cortex, a-tDCS reduces the concentration of the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), an effect that has been linked to increased neuroplasticity. The aim of this study was to assess whether a-tDCS also reduces GABA-mediated inhibition when applied to the human visual cortex. Changes in visual cortex inhibition were measured using the mixed percept duration in binocular rivalry. Binocular rivalry mixed percept duration has recently been advocated as a direct and sensitive measure of visual cortex inhibition whereby GABA agonists decrease mixed percept durations and agonists of the excitatory neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACH) increase them. Our hypothesis was that visual cortex a-tDCS would increase mixed percept duration by reducing GABA-mediated inhibition and increasing cortical excitation. In addition, we measured the effect of continuous theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation (cTBS) of the visual cortex on binocular rivalry dynamics. When applied to the motor or visual cortex, cTBS increases GABA concentration and we therefore hypothesized that visual cortex cTBS would decrease the mixed percept duration. Binocular rivalry dynamics were recorded before and after active and sham a-tDCS (N = 15) or cTBS (N = 15). Contrary to our hypotheses, a-tDCS had no effect, whereas cTBS increased mixed percepts during rivalry. These results suggest that the neurochemical mechanisms of a-tDCS may differ between the motor and visual cortices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".