Blindly separated spontaneous network-level oscillations predict corticospinal excitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. The corticospinal responses of the motor network to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are highly variable. While often regarded as noise, this variability provides a way of probing dynamic brain states related to excitability. We aimed to uncover spontaneously occurring cortical states that alter corticospinal excitability. Approach. Electroencephalography (EEG) recorded during TMS registers fast neural dynamics—unfortunately, at the cost of anatomical precision. We employed analytic Common Spatial Patterns technique to derive excitability-related cortical activity from pre-TMS EEG signals while overcoming spatial specificity issues. Main results. High corticospinal excitability was predicted by alpha-band activity, localized adjacent to the stimulated left motor cortex, and suggesting a travelling wave-like phenomenon towards frontal regions. Low excitability was predicted by alpha-band activity localized in the medial parietal–occipital and frontal cortical regions. Significance. We established a data-driven approach for uncovering network-level neural activity that modulates TMS effects. It requires no prior anatomical assumptions, while being physiologically interpretable, and can be employed in both exploratory investigation and brain state-dependent 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".