MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225287522 · doi:10.1177/15500594221098285

Synchronized Auditory Gamma Response to Frontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and its Inter-Individual Variation in Healthy Humans

2022· article· en· W4225287522 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara de la Salle, Urusa Shah, Molly Hyde, Renee Baysarowich, Robert Aidelbaum, Joëlle Choueiry, Verner Knott

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton UniversityRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationNeurosciencePsychologyNeuroplasticityAudiologyElectroencephalographyStimulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In schizophrenia, a disorder associated with N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) hypofunction, auditory cortical plasticity deficits have been indexed by the synchronized electroencephalographic (EEG) auditory steady-state gamma-band (40-Hz) response (ASSR) and the early auditory evoked gamma-band response (aeGBR), both considered to be target engagement biomarkers for NMDAR function, and potentially amenable to treatment by NMDAR modulators. As transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is likely dependent on NMDAR neurotransmission, this preliminary study, conducted in 30 healthy volunteers, assessed the off-line effects of prefrontal anodal tDCS and sham (placebo) treatment on 40-Hz ASSR and aeGBR. Anodal tDCS failed to alter aeGBR but increased both 40-Hz ASSR power, as measured by event-related spectral perturbations (ERSP), and phase locking, as measured by inter-trial phase consistency (ITPC). Inter-individual differences in tDCS-induced increases in ERSP were negatively related to baseline ERSPs. These findings provide tentative support for further study of tDCS as a potential NMDAR neuromodulatory intervention for synchronized auditory gamma response deficits.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207