Is activation of the vestibular system by electromagnetic induction a possibility in an MRI context?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, an increasing number of studies have discussed the mechanisms of vestibular activation in strong magnetic field settings such as occur in a magnetic resonance imaging scanner environment. Amid the different hypotheses, the Lorentz force explanation currently stands out as the most plausible mechanism, as evidenced by activation of the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Other hypotheses have largely been discarded. Nonetheless, both human data and computational modeling suggest that electromagnetic induction could be a valid mechanism which may coexist alongside the Lorentz force. To further investigate the induction hypothesis, we provide, herein, a first of its kind dosimetric analysis to estimate the induced electric fields at the vestibular system and compare them with what galvanic vestibular stimulation would generate. We found that electric fields strengths from induction match galvanic vestibular stimulation strengths generating vestibular responses. This review examines the evidence in support of electromagnetic induction of vestibular responses, and whether movement-induced time-varying magnetic fields should be further considered and investigated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".