MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216078936 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2021.10.166

TMS Adaptable Auditory Control: a universal tool to mask TMS click

2021· article· en· W3216078936 on OpenAlexaff
Simone Russo, Simone Sarasso, Giuseppina Emma Puglisi, Doriana Dal Palù, Andrea Pigorini, Michela Solbiati, Arianna Astolfi, Marcello Massimini, Mario Rosanova, Matteo Fecchio

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasking (illustration)Noise (video)Computer scienceTranscranial magnetic stimulationAuditory maskingLoudnessSpeech recognitionAcousticsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysicsPsychologyStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coupling transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) allows to non-invasively probe the human thalamocortical system. However, obtaining a pure TMS evoked potential requires controlling for several confoundings, such as auditory potentials evoked (AEPs) by the TMS 'click'. An effective control for AEPs consists of playing a noise through earphones in order to mask the TMS 'click' (masking noise).Here we tested TMS Adaptable Auditory Control (TAAC), a tool that generates in real-time a masking noise adapted to the stimulator and optimized to fit the ‘click’ perception. To this aim, we systematically measured the sound level required to mask the TMS ‘click’ with the state-of-the-art masking noise (i.e. white noise and adapted noise) and with two masking noises generated through TAAC played through in-ear earphones in a group of 19 healthy subjects. TMS pulses were delivered while gradually increasing the loudness until subjects were not able to identify the TMS 'click'. We iteratively performed this procedure for all four masking noises and during both a real TMS (2 cm behind the vertex) and a sham TMS condition (on the vertex, 90° sagittal rotation). Finally, we estimated the equivalent sound level for each masking noise as measured through a Head and Torso Simulator (HATS, Bruel&Kjaer, Type4128). Results show that all masking noises were effective at the following sound levels (Medians): White noise=87.1Db; Adapted noise=88.9Db; TAAC Noise1=84.1Db; TAAC Noise2=82.9Db. Thus, we demonstrate that the sound level required to mask TMS 'click' is safe for the human auditory system for the typical duration of TMS-EEG procedures with respect to standard safety tables (e.g. 90Db for 2 hours). Furthermore, TAAC can be used to mask TMS 'click' at lower sound levels compared to currently available masking noises. Keywords: TMS-EEG, Noise masking, Auditory evoked potential, TEP

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207