The neurophysiological aftereffects of brain stimulation in human primary motor cortex: a Sham-controlled comparison of three protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paired associative stimulation (PAS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) are non-invasive brain stimulation methods that are used to modulate cortical excitability. Whether one technique is superior to the others in achieving this outcome and whether individuals that respond to one intervention are more likely to respond to another remains largely unknown. In the present study, the neurophysiological aftereffects of three excitatory neurostimulation protocols were measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Twenty minutes of PAS at an ISI of 25 ms, anodal tDCS, 20-Hz tACS, and Sham stimulation were administered to 31 healthy adults in a repeated measures design. Compared with Sham, none of the stimulation protocols significantly modulated corticospinal excitability (input/ouput curve and slope, TMS stimulator intensity required to elicit MEPs of 1-mV amplitude) or intracortical excitability (short- and long-interval intracortical inhibition, intracortical facilitation, cortical silent period). Sham-corrected responder analysis estimates showed that an average of 41 (PAS), 39 (tDCS), and 39% (tACS) of participants responded to the interventions with an increase in corticospinal excitability. The present data show that three stimulation protocols believed to increase cortical excitability are associated with highly heterogenous and variable aftereffects that may explain a lack of significant group effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".