Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of the relationship between task‐related hemodynamic responses and cortical excitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigating the relationship between task-related hemodynamic responses and cortical excitability is challenging because it requires simultaneous measurement of hemodynamic responses while applying noninvasive brain stimulation. Moreover, cortical excitability and task-related hemodynamic responses are both associated with inter-/intra-subject variability. To reliably assess such a relationship, we applied hierarchical Bayesian modeling. This study involved 16 healthy subjects who underwent simultaneous Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS10, PAS25, Sham) while monitoring brain activity using functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), targeting the primary motor cortex (M1). Cortical excitability was measured by Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs), and the motor task-related hemodynamic responses were measured using fNIRS 3D reconstructions. We constructed three models to investigate: (1) PAS effects on the M1 excitability, (2) PAS effects on fNIRS hemodynamic responses to a finger tapping task, and (3) the correlation between PAS effects on M1 excitability and PAS effects on task-related hemodynamic responses. Significant increase in cortical excitability was found following PAS25, whereas a small reduction of the cortical excitability was shown after PAS10 and a subtle increase occurred after sham. Both HbO and HbR absolute amplitudes increased after PAS25 and decreased after PAS10. The probability of the positive correlation between modulation of cortical excitability and hemodynamic activity was 0.77 for HbO and 0.79 for HbR. We demonstrated that PAS stimulation modulates task-related cortical hemodynamic responses in addition to M1 excitability. Moreover, the positive correlation between PAS modulations of excitability and hemodynamics brought insight into understanding the fundamental properties of cortical function and cortical excitability.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".