Improvement on a working memory task is more generalized and longer lasting when people with dementia practice this task with 4mA tDCS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be associated with significant auditory, tactile, and pain sensations at the site of stimulation.These sensations can not only cause discomfort but electrophysiologically can interfere with the interpretation of direct cortical TMS-evoked potentials.Prior studies have explored a number of easily implementable modifications to reduce these sensations, with some success.In this study we aimed to further reduce these sensations with multiple novel approaches.In a sample of 12 healthy adults, combinations of sensory-reducing methods including foam, auditory noise masking, and jitter were applied during single pulse TMS to the dlPFC at 120% of resting motor threshold.After each condition participants were asked to quantify loudness, scalp feeling, and pain perception on quantitative scales.Primary outcomes were change in perceptual rating for auditory, tactile, and pain sensations compared to a baseline condition with no foam, no auditory masking, and two second jittered inter-stimulus interval.Results suggest that: (1) A combination of auditory noise created from the TMS "click" frequencies, played through earbud-earplugs, paired with industrial grade, noisereducing, over-the-ear earmuffs greatly reduces auditory perception of the TMS pulse, (2) The addition of foam may increase the sensory aspects of the TMS pulse due to greater distribution of stimulus sensation over the scalp as well as louder auditory click, (3) Use of unjittered protocols may reduce perceptual ratings when compared to jittered protocols due to stimulus priming.This work may contribute to the development of a more tolerable method of delivering TMS and more interpretable TMS evoked potentials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".