Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping is a safe, non-invasive method that can be used to study corticomotor organization. Motor maps are typically acquired at rest, and comparisons to maps obtained during muscle activation have been both limited and contradictory. Understanding the relationship between functional activation of the corticomotor system as recorded by motor mapping is crucial for their use clinically and in research. The present study utilized robotic TMS paired with personalized neuro-navigation to examine the relationship between resting and active motor map measures and their relationship with motor performance. Twenty healthy right-handed participants underwent resting and active robotic TMS motor mapping of the first dorsal interosseous to 10% maximum voluntary contraction. Motor map parameters including map area, volume, and measures of map centrality were compared between techniques using paired sample tests of difference and Bland-Altman plots and analysis. Map area, volume, and hotspot magnitude were larger in the active motor maps, while map center of gravity and hotspot locations remained consistent between both maps. No associations were observed between motor maps and motor performance as measured by the Purdue Pegboard Test. Our findings support previous suggestions that maps scale with muscle contraction. Differences in mapping outcomes suggest rest and active motor maps may reflect functionally different corticomotor representations. Advanced analysis methods may better characterize the underlying neurophysiology of both types of motor mapping.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".