The effect of montages of transcranial alternating current stimulation on occipital responses—a sham-controlled pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transcranial alternative current stimulation (tACS) refers to a promising non-invasive technique to improve brain functions. However, owing to various stimulation parameters in the literature, optimization of the stimulation is warranted. In this study, the authors aimed to compare the effect of tACS electrode montages on occipital responses. Methods: In three montage sessions (i.e., Oz-Cz, Oz-cheek, and sham), 10 healthy young adults participated, receiving 20-min 2-mA alpha-tACS. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were measured before tACS (T0), immediately after (T20), and 20 min (T40) after tACS. Normalized changes in time-domain features (i.e., N75, P100 amplitudes, and P100 latency) and frequency-domain features [i.e., power spectral density in alpha (PSDα) and beta (PSDβ) bands] were evaluated. Results: = 0.03) after 20 min of tACS. The effects on N75 amplitude and P100 latency were statistically insignificant. For spectral analysis, both PSDα and PSDβ were significantly increased after tACS at T20, in which the effect sustained until T40. However, there was no differential effect by montages. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of sensations across the montages. The effectiveness of the blinding is supported by the participants' rate of guessing correctly. Conclusion: This study revealed an immediate inhibitory effect of tACS, regardless of the montages. This inhibitory effect sustained in the Oz-Cz montage but faded out in other montages after 20 min.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".