Stimulation with acoustic white noise enhances motor excitability and sensorimotor integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory white noise (WN) is widely used in neuroscience to mask unwanted environmental noise and cues, e.g. TMS clicks. However, to date there is no research on the influence of WN on corticospinal excitability and potentially associated sensorimotor integration itself. Here we tested the hypothesis, if WN induces M1 excitability changes and improves sensorimotor performance. M1 excitability (spTMS, SICI, ICF, I/O curve) and sensorimotor reaction-time performance were quantified before, during and after WN stimulation in a set of experiments performed in a cohort of 61 healthy subjects. WN enhanced M1 corticospinal excitability, not just during exposure, but also during silence periods intermingled with WN, and up to several minutes after the end of exposure. Two independent behavioural experiments highlighted that WN improved multimodal sensorimotor performance. The enduring excitability modulation combined with the effects on behaviour suggest that WN might induce neural plasticity. WN is thus a relevant modulator of corticospinal function; its neurobiological effects should not be neglected and could in fact be exploited in research applications.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".