The Contribution of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Full and Divided Encoding: A Paired-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated the contribution of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in the attentional resources in episodic encoding for both verbal and non-verbal material. Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulations (TMS) were used to interfere transiently with either the left or right DLPFC during encoding under full attention (FA) or under divided attention (DA) in a recognition paradigm using words and random shapes. Participants recognized fewer items after TMS over the left DLPFC than over the right DLPFC during FA encoding. However, TMS over the left DLPFC did not impair performance when compared to sham condition. Conversely, participants produced fewer items after TMS over the right DLPFC in DA encoding compared to sham condition, but not compared to TMS over the left DLPFC. These effects were found for both words and random shapes. These results suggest that the right DLPFC play an important role in successful encoding with a concomitant task regardless of the type of material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".