MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205629347 · doi:10.1101/2022.01.13.476093

Transcranial alternating current stimulation does not modulate corticospinal activity in humans

2022· preprint· en· W4205629347 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime Ibáñez, Blanka Zicher, Katherine E. Brown, Lorenzo Rocchi, Francesco Casolo, Alessandro Del Vecchio, Danny Spampinato, Carole-Anne Vollette, John C. Rothwell, Stuart N. Baker, Davide Farina

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundación Bancaria Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona
KeywordsTranscranial alternating current stimulationEntrainment (biomusicology)NeuroscienceMotor cortexCorticospinal tractElectromyographyStimulationPrimary motor cortexBrain activity and meditationPyramidal tractsMotor unitElectroencephalographyPsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineRhythmInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Transcranial alternating current stimulation (TACS) is commonly used to synchronise the output of a cortical area to other parts of the nervous system, but evidence for this based on brain recordings in humans is challenging. The brain transmits beta oscillations ( ~ 21Hz) to tonically contracted limb muscles linearly and through the fastest corticospinal pathways. Therefore, muscle activity may be used as a proxy measure for the level of beta entrainment in the corticospinal tract due to TACS over motor cortex. Here, we assessed if TACS is able to modulate the neural inputs to muscles, which would provide an indirect evidence for TACS-driven neural entrainment. In the first part of this study, we ran a series of simulations of motor neuron (MN) pools receiving inputs from corticospinal neurons with different levels of beta entrainment. Results indicated that MNs should be highly sensitive to changes in corticospinal beta activity. Then, we ran experiments on healthy human subjects (N=10) in which TACS (at 1mA) was delivered over the motor cortex at 21Hz (beta stimulation), or at 7Hz or 40Hz (control conditions) while the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) or the tibialis anterior muscle (TA) were tonically contracted. Muscle activity was measured using high-density electromyography, which allowed us to decompose the spiking activity of pools of motor units innervating the studied muscles. By analysing motor unit pool activity, we observed that none of the tested TACS conditions could consistently alter the spectral characteristics of the common neural inputs received by the muscles. These results suggest that 1mA-TACS over motor cortex given at frequencies in the beta band does not affect corticospinal beta entrainment. Highlights - TACS is commonly used to entrain the communication between brain regions - It is challenging to find direct evidence supporting TACS-driven neural entrainment - Simulations show that motor neurons are sensitive to corticospinal beta entrainment - Motor unit activity from human muscles does not support TACS-driven entrainment

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→