Transcranial magnetic stimulation to early visual cortex modulates binocular rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuromodulation techniques have been pivotal for mapping neural networks. Among these, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive technique that has proven effective in promoting neuroplasticity in various brain regions. Continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) is a form of rTMS thought to promote inhibitory effects in primary motor cortex. Our study extends the exploration of cTBS to the visual domain, investigating its impact on binocular rivalry (BR) after administering 600 pulses at 80% of phosphene threshold (PT) to primary visual cortex (V1). Binocular rivalry is characterised by alternating periods of visual dominance when two different images are presented simultaneously to each eye. BR is orchestrated by a complex interplay across the visual pathway, from retinal input to lower and higher cortical processing (including attention). Notably, cortical columns in V1 exhibit monocular responses that underpin the perceptual alternations witnessed in BR, however, the exact mechanism is not well understood. In our sham-controlled study, 19 individuals underwent a BR task, observing orthogonal grey-scale gratings with fixed orientation (+/-45°) through a mirror stereoscope and reporting shifts in visual dominance. Following cTBS application to the left V1 using stereotaxic neuronavigation, participants reported the frequency of BR alternations. Our preliminary findings reveal an increased alternation rate in BR after active cTBS (and not sham), suggesting that cTBS can modulate perceptual dominance in visual processing. These insights enhance our comprehension of cTBS's neuromodulatory potential and underscore its promise as a tool for research and potential treatment of vision disorders rooted in neural dysfunction. Our research contributes to the expanding dialogue on the intersection of neuromodulation, visual perception, and cortical plasticity.
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".