MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320897500 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.01.647

Investigating the effects of cerebellar transcranial ultrasound stimulation on motor cortex excitability

2023· article· en· W4320897500 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Nankoo, Nasem Raies, Xue Xia, Anton Fomenko, Julianne Baarbé, Yanqiu Wang, Yazan Shamli Oghli, Can Sarica, Ghazaleh Darmani, Andrés M. Lozano, Robert Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of TorontoKrembil Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationSonicationMotor cortexNeuroscienceScalpPsychologyBrain stimulationChemistryMedicineAnesthesiaAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) is a novel non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses acoustic waves to alter neuronal excitability. We investigated the effects of cerebellar TUS (cbTUS) on motor cortex (M1) excitability. We hypothesized that 1) longer cbTUS duration will induce greater inhibition of M1 excitability; 2) TUS will lower M1 excitability post-sonication; 3) cbTUS of lobule VIII will have greater inhibition compared to Crus I/II. Real cbTUS consisted of sonication at 20 W whereas sham consisted of 0 W. A 12 kHz tone mask was used. In Experiment 1, cbTUS was applied to Crus I/II and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from transcranial magnetic stimulation of contralateral M1 were measured at pre-TUS, after 150 ms, 300 ms, and 450 ms of TUS, and 150 ms following 500 ms of TUS. We observed that longer sonication duration induced greater inhibition. In Experiment 2 we assessed longer latencies post-sonication and compared Crus I/II stimulation to lobule VIII. We found inhibition following 450 ms of cbTUS and at 150 ms post 500 ms sonication. However, MEPs 150 ms post-real TUS did not differ from sham. No effect of stimulation location was found. In Experiment 3, we tested primarily 0 W sham and included two active sham conditions: 450ms of 20 W TUS targeting V1, and 450 ms of 20 W stimulation with the transducer facing away from the scalp. A real stimulation condition of 450 ms cbTUS was included. Results show that inhibition occurred post-sonication and following 450 ms of sham stimulation, due to an inhibitory effect of the sound mask. MEPs following 450 ms of real cbTUS was lower than 450 ms of sham stimulations. This shows that cbTUS can inhibit M1 excitability and is the first demonstration of an effect of cerebellar TUS in humans. Research Category and Technology and Methods Basic Research: 6. Pulsed Ultrasound (pUS) Keywords: MEP, Brain stimulation, Cerebellum, Neuromodulation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207