MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213856397 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.759149

Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation Effects on EEG Biomarkers of Motor Vigor in Parkinson's Disease

2021· article· en· W3213856397 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Kazemi, Maryam S. Mirian, Soojin Lee, Martin J. McKeown

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyGalvanic vestibular stimulationParkinson's diseaseFrequency bandNeuroscienceAudiologyPsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)StimulationMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Impaired motor vigor (MV) is a critical aspect of Parkinson's disease (PD) pathophysiology. While MV is predominantly encoded in the basal ganglia, deriving (cortical) EEG measures of MV may provide valuable targets for modulation via galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). Objective: To find EEG features predictive of MV and examine the effects of high-frequency GVS. Methods: Data were collected from 20 healthy control (HC) and 18 PD adults performing 30 trials total of a squeeze bulb task with sham or multi-sine (50–100 Hz “GVS1” or 100–150 Hz “GVS2”) stimuli. For each trial, we determined the time to reach maximum force after a “Go” signal, defined MV as the inverse of this time, and used the EEG data 1-sec prior to this time for prediction. We utilized 53 standard EEG features, including relative spectral power, harmonic parameters, and amplitude and phase of bispectrum corresponding to standard EEG bands from each of 27 EEG channels. We then used LASSO regression to select a sparse set of features to predict MV. The regression weights were examined, and separate band-specific models were developed by including only band-specific features (Delta, Theta, Alpha-low, Alpha-high, Beta, Gamma). The correlation between MV prediction and measured MV was used to assess model performance. Results: Models utilizing broadband EEG features were capable of accurately predicting MV (controls: 75%, PD: 81% of the variance). In controls, all EEG bands performed roughly equally in predicting MV, while in the PD group, the model using only beta band features did not predict MV well compared to other bands. Despite having minimal effects on the EEG feature values themselves, both GVS stimuli had significant effects on MV and profound effects on MV predictability via the EEG. With the GVS1 stimulus, beta-band activity in PD subjects became more closely associated with MV compared to the sham condition. With GVS2 stimulus, MV could no longer be accurately predicted from the EEG. Conclusions: EEG features can be a proxy for MV. However, GVS stimuli have profound effects on the relationship between EEG and MV, possibly via direct vestibulo-basal ganglia connections not measurable by the EEG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207