Assessing cortical excitability with electroencephalography: A pilot study with EEG-iTBS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cortical excitability measures neural reactivity to stimuli, usually delivered via Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). Excitation/inhibition balance (E/I) is the ongoing equilibrium between excitatory and inhibitory activity of neural circuits. According to some studies, E/I could be estimated in-vivo and non-invasively through the modeling of electroencephalography (EEG) signals and termed 'intrinsic excitability' measures. Several measures have been proposed (phase consistency in the gamma band, sample entropy, exponent of the power spectral density 1/f curve, E/I index extracted from detrend fluctuation analysis, and alpha power). Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique allowing controlled and focal enhancement of TMS cortical excitability and E/I of the stimulated hemisphere. OBJECTIVE: Investigating to what extent E/I estimates scale with TMS excitability and how they relate to each other. METHODS: M1 excitability (TMS) and several E/I estimates extracted from resting state EEG recordings were assessed before and after iTBS in a cohort of healthy subjects. RESULTS: Enhancement of TMS M1 excitability, as measured through motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), and phase consistency of the cortex in high gamma band correlated with each other. Other measures of E/I showed some expected results, but no correlation with TMS excitability measures or strong consistency with each other. CONCLUSIONS: EEG E/I estimates offer an intriguing opportunity to map cortical excitability non-invasively, with high spatio-temporal resolution and with a stimulus independent approach. While different EEG E/I estimates may reflect the activity of diverse excitatory-inhibitory circuits, spatial phase synchrony in the gamma band is the measure that best captures excitability changes in the primary motor cortex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".