MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399332317 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ad5404

Blindly separated spontaneous network-level oscillations predict corticospinal excitability

2024· article· en· W4399332317 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Ermolova, Johanna Metsomaa, Paolo Belardinelli, Christoph Zrenner, Ulf Ziemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersEuropean Research CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyMotor cortexPsychologyBrain activity and meditationTranscranial alternating current stimulationStimulationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207