MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386726547 · doi:10.1152/jn.00069.2023

Variation of corticospinal excitability during kinesthetic illusion induced by musculotendinous vibration

2023· article· en· W4386726547 on OpenAlexafffund
Lydiane Lauzier, Marie-Pier Perron, Laurence Munger, Émilie Bouchard, Jacques Abboud, François Nougarou, Louis‐David Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFonds de recherche du QuébecRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceMotor cortexPsychologyIllusionReciprocal inhibitionProprioceptionCorticospinal tractElectromyographyWristPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPrimary motor cortexSilent periodStimulationNeurophysiologyEvoked potentialH-reflexAudiologyMedicineAnatomyMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modulation of corticospinal excitability when perceiving a vibration (VIB)-induced kinesthetic illusion evolves dynamically over time. This modulation might be linked to the delayed occurrence and progressive increase in strength of the illusory perception in the first seconds after VIB start. Different spinal/cortical mechanisms could be at play during VIB, depending on the tested muscle, presence/absence of an illusion, and the specific timing at which corticospinal drive is tested pre/post VIB.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207