MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131127964 · doi:10.3390/s21041476

Cortical Effects of Noisy Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

2021· article· en· W3131127964 on OpenAlexaff
Bulmaro A. Valdés, Kim Lajoie, Daniel S. Marigold, Carlo Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCalifornia HIV/AIDS Research Program
KeywordsGalvanic vestibular stimulationFunctional near-infrared spectroscopyStimulationNeuroscienceVestibular systemMedicinePsychologyCognitionPrefrontal cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS) can improve different motor, sensory, and cognitive behaviors. However, it is unclear how this stimulation affects brain activity to facilitate these improvements. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is inexpensive, portable, and less prone to motion artifacts than other neuroimaging technology. Thus, fNIRS has the potential to provide insight into how nGVS affects cortical activity during a variety of natural behaviors. Here we sought to: (1) determine if fNIRS can detect cortical changes in oxygenated (HbO) and deoxygenated (HbR) hemoglobin with application of subthreshold nGVS, and (2) determine how subthreshold nGVS affects this fNIRS-derived hemodynamic response. A total of twelve healthy participants received nGVS and sham stimulation during a seated, resting-state paradigm. To determine whether nGVS altered activity in select cortical regions of interest (BA40, BA39), we compared differences between nGVS and sham HbO and HbR concentrations. We found a greater HbR response during nGVS compared to sham stimulation in left BA40, a region previously associated with vestibular processing, and with all left hemisphere channels combined (p < 0.05). We did not detect differences in HbO responses for any region during nGVS (p > 0.05). Our results suggest that fNIRS may be suitable for understanding the cortical effects of nGVS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207