P.054 Effects of cerebellar Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS) on working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent evidence suggests that the cerebellum is involved in cognitive functions. Theta burst stimulation (TBS), a modality of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), on the cerebellum can change its contribution to working memory. Therefore, we hypothesize that excitatory intermittent TBS (iTBS) on the cerebellum would improve performance on working memory tasks, whereas inhibitory continuous TBS (cTBS) would disrupt it. Methods: As this is an ongoing study, nine participants (6 women) took part in this study so far. TBS was applied on the cerebellum bilaterally. All subjects received iTBS, cTBS, and sham iTBS in three sessions in random order. After TBS in each session, participants performed three types of working memory tasks: letter 2-back, digit span forward (DSF), and digit span backward (DSB). Results: The preliminary results suggest that participants performed better in the sham condition in the letter 2-back and the DSB tasks compared to the iTBS and cTBS conditions, but the results did not reach statistical significance due to the small sample size. Conclusions: The preliminary results show that the cerebellar contribution to working memory may be disrupted by TBS. As we gain more statistical power by recruiting more participants, we hope to further demonstrate the effects of cerebellar TBS on working memory.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".