MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282572403 · doi:10.1101/2022.06.09.494069

TMS-Evoked Responses Are Driven by Recurrent Large-Scale Network Dynamics

2022· preprint· en· W4282572403 on OpenAlexaff
Davide Momi, Zheng Wang, John D. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialNeurostimulationNeurophysiologyGABAergicElectroencephalographyComputer scienceTranscranial magnetic stimulationWaveformPsychologyStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract A major question in systems and cognitive neuroscience is to what extent neurostimulation responses are driven by recurrent activity. This question finds sharp relief in the case of TMS-EEG evoked potentials (TEPs). TEPs are spatiotemporal waveform patterns with characteristic inflections at ∼50ms, ∼100ms, and ∼150-200ms following a single TMS pulse that disperse from, and later reconverge to, the primary stimulated regions. What parts of the TEP are due to recurrent activity? And what light might this shed on more general principles of brain organization? We studied this using source-localized TMS-EEG analyses and whole-brain connectome-based computational modelling. Results indicated that recurrent network feedback begins to drive TEP responses from ∼100ms post-stimulation, with earlier TEP components being attributable to local reverberatory activity within the stimulated region. Subject-specific estimation of neurophysiological parameters additionally indicated an important role for inhibitory GABAergic neural populations in scaling cortical excitability levels, as reflected in TEP waveform characteristics.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→