Pulsed inhibition of corticospinal excitability by the thalamocortical sleep spindle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thalamocortical sleep spindles, i.e., oscillatory bursts at ∼12-15 Hz of waxing and waning amplitude, are a hallmark feature of non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep and believed to play a key role in sleep-dependent memory reactivation and consolidation. Generated in the thalamus and projecting to neocortex and hippocampus, they are phasically modulated by neocortical slow oscillations (<1 Hz) and in turn phasically modulate hippocampal sharp-wave ripples (>80 Hz). This hierarchical cross-frequency nesting may enable phase-dependent plasticity in the neocortex, and spindles have thus been considered windows of plasticity in the sleeping brain. However, the assumed phasic excitability modulation had not yet been demonstrated for spindles. Utilizing a recently developed real-time spindle detection algorithm, we applied spindle phase-triggered transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the primary motor cortex (M1) hand area and measured motor evoked potentials (MEP) to characterize corticospinal excitability during sleep spindles. We found a net suppression of MEP amplitudes during spindles, driven by selective inhibition during the falling flank of the spindle oscillation, but no inhibition during its peak, rising flank, and trough. Importantly, this phasic inhibition occurred on top of the general sleep-related inhibition observed during spindle-free NREM sleep and did not extend into the immediate refractory post-spindle periods. We conclude that spindles exert asymmetric “pulsed inhibition” of corticospinal excitability, which is assumedly relevant for processes of phase-dependent plasticity. These findings and the developed real-time spindle targeting methods will enable future studies to uncover the causal role of spindles in synaptic plasticity and systems memory consolidation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".