Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the same way that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, what a stimulus does to the brain is determined not simply by the nature of the stimulus but by the nature of the brain that is receiving the stimulus at that instant in time. Over the past decades, therapeutic brain stimulation has typically applied open-loop fixed protocols and has largely ignored this principle. Only recent neurotechnological advancements have enabled us to predict the nature of the brain (i.e., the electrophysiological brain state in the next instance in time) with sufficient temporal precision in the range of milliseconds using feedforward algorithms applied to electroencephalography time-series data. This allows stimulation exclusively whenever the targeted brain area is in a prespecified excitability or connectivity state. Preclinical studies have shown that repetitive stimulation during a particular brain state (e.g., high-excitability state), but not during other states, results in lasting modification (e.g., long-term potentiation) of the stimulated circuits. Here, we survey the evidence that this is also possible at the systems level of the human cortex using electroencephalography-informed transcranial magnetic stimulation. We critically discuss opportunities and difficulties in developing brain state-dependent stimulation for more effective long-term modification of pathological brain networks (e.g., in major depressive disorder) than is achievable with conventional fixed protocols. The same real-time electroencephalography-informed transcranial magnetic stimulation technology will allow closing of the loop by recording the effects of stimulation. This information may enable stimulation protocol adaptation that maximizes treatment response. This way, brain states control brain stimulation, thereby introducing a paradigm shift from open-loop to closed-loop stimulation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".