MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320907674 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.01.116

EEG-based biomarkers for galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) effects in Parkinson’s disease

2023· article· en· W4320907674 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam S. Mirian, Maryam Kia, Salar Nouri, Kosar Sanjar Arani, Alireza Kazemi, Soojin Lee, Martin J. McKeown

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyPsychologyNeuroscienceParkinson's diseaseAudiologyStimulus (psychology)MedicineInternal medicineDiseaseCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The effects of GVS in PD appear to be stimulus- and subject-dependent. However, determining the behavioral effects (e.g. on motor vigor (MV)) from the infinite number of potential stimuli would take an intractably long time. By assessing the EEG, a high-dimensional intermediate step between (i.e., from {GVS -> behavior} to {GVS -> EEG -> behavior}, we propose to rapidly assess the effects of GVS on the EEG and/or predict the behavioral effects of EEG changes. Objective: To explore multiple complementary GVS related biomarkers, including EEG Microstates, Phase Amplitude Coupling (PAC), and Deep Koopman-based EEG analysis. Methods: Data were collected from 20 healthy control (HC) and 18 PD adults performing a delayed squeeze bulb task with sham or multi-sine (50-100 Hz "GVS1" or 100-150 Hz "GVS2") stimuli. Time from the onset of the “Go” cue to the peak of maximum pressure in the squeeze bulb was taken as a metric for MV. We took the EEG 1-s prior to the peak time to predict MV. We employed the Microstate Analysis plugin for EEGLAB. For the PAC biomarker, a deep convolutional neural network based on transfer learning from the VGG-16 architecture was used to estimate MV. To implement a Deep Koopman approach, we examined the EEG time locked to the “Go” signal. Results: For the microstate analysis biomarker, the GVS2 stimulus had similar effects in PD subjects as dopaminergic medication. The PAC-based biomarker predicted MV with mean absolute error of 54.8 msec. There was a positive correlation between movement time in PD subjects and their similarity of their EEG Koopman trajectories to HCs. Discussion: Despite MV normally assumed to be encoded in the basal ganglia, EEG biomarkers can be used to both predict MV, and infer GVS effects. These, and other EEG-based biomarkers, will streamline efforts for precision stimulus design. Research Category and Technology and Methods Translational Research: 15. Electroencephalography (EEG) Keywords: Parkinson's disease, Galvanic vestibular stimulation, Microstates, Phase Amplitude Coupling

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207