Brain stimulation competes with ongoing oscillations for control of spike timing in the primate brain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a popular method for modulating brain activity noninvasively. In particular, tACS is often used as a targeted intervention that enhances a neural oscillation at a specific frequency to affect a particular behavior. However, these interventions often yield highly variable results. Here, we provide a potential explanation for this variability: tACS competes with the brain's ongoing oscillations. Using neural recordings from alert nonhuman primates, we find that when neural firing is independent of ongoing brain oscillations, tACS readily entrains spiking activity, but when neurons are strongly entrained to ongoing oscillations, tACS often causes a decrease in entrainment instead. Consequently, tACS can yield categorically different results on neural activity, even when the stimulation protocol is fixed. Mathematical analysis suggests that this competition is likely to occur under many experimental conditions. Attempting to impose an external rhythm on the brain may therefore often yield precisely the opposite effect.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it