MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using noise for the better: The effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on the brain and behavior

2022· review· en· W4280523582 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNeuroscienceStimulationBrain stimulationPsychologyNoise (video)NeuroplasticityCognitionHuman brainTranscranial direct-current stimulationBrain functionPerceptionTranscranial alternating current stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Van der Groen, O., Potok, W., Wenderoth, N., Edwards, G., Mattingley, J.B. and Edwards, D. Using noise for the better: The effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on the brain and behavior. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV X (X) XXX-XXX 2021.- Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is a non-invasive electrical brain stimulation method that is increasingly employed in studies of human brain function and behavior, in health and disease. tRNS is effective in modulating perception acutely and can improve learning. By contrast, its effectiveness for modulating higher cognitive processes is variable. Prolonged stimulation with tRNS, either as one longer application, or multiple shorter applications, may engage plasticity mechanisms that can result in long-term benefits. Here we provide an overview of the current understanding of the effects of tRNS on the brain and behavior and provide some specific recommendations for future research.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.170 · 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