MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of Large-Scale Brain State Dynamics on the Evoked Response to Brain Stimulation

2024· article· en· W4401728532 on OpenAlexafffund
Amin Kabir Anaraki, Prabhjot Dhami, Marie-Anne Dussault Gomez, Daniel M. Blumberger, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Sylvain Moreno, Faranak Farzan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsBC Innovation CouncilCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCBrainsWayIndivior
KeywordsNeurostimulationNeuroscienceBrain activity and meditationTranscranial magnetic stimulationElectroencephalographyStimulationBrain stimulationPsychologyPrefrontal cortexMagnetoencephalographyTranscranial alternating current stimulationCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how spontaneous brain activity influences the response to neurostimulation is crucial for the development of neurotherapeutics and brain-computer interfaces. Localized brain activity is suggested to influence the response to neurostimulation, but whether fast-fluctuating (i.e., tens of milliseconds) large-scale brain dynamics also have any such influence is unknown. By stimulating the prefrontal cortex using combined transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electroencephalography, we examined how dynamic global brain state patterns, as defined by microstates, influence the magnitude of the evoked brain response. TMS applied during what resembled the canonical Microstate C was found to induce a greater evoked response for up to 80 ms compared with other microstates. This effect was found in a repeated experimental session, was absent during sham stimulation, and was replicated in an independent dataset. Ultimately, ongoing and fast-fluctuating global brain states, as probed by microstates, may be associated with intrinsic fluctuations in connectivity and excitation-inhibition balance and influence the neurostimulation outcome. We suggest that the fast-fluctuating global brain states be considered when developing any related paradigms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207