Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation during Gait: A Review of Methodological and Technological Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used for therapeutic and research purposes such as cognitive studies, treatment of psychiatric disorders, and Parkinson's disease. In research, TMS is perhaps the only technique that can establish a functional connection between brain regions and task performance. In gait research, often TMS is used to identify the extent to which leg motor cortex is involved in different phases on gait cycle. However, using TMS in gait can be challenging for several technical reasons and physiological variations. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize literature in the field of TMS and gait research and present comprehensive challenges. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify all relevant literature on TMS and gait. Several critical challenges could potentially impact the findings. For instance, the use of different protocols to obtain motor threshold. This review presents some of the critical challenges in applying TMS during gait. It is important to be aware of these variations and utilize strategies to mitigate some challenges.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".