MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402912106 · doi:10.1167/jov.24.10.413

Variation in cortical responses to neuromodulation: Motor thresholds vs. Visual phosphenes

2024· article· en· W4402912106 on OpenAlexaff
Remy Cohan, Jennifer K. E. Steeves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhospheneVariation (astronomy)NeuromodulationNeurosciencePsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocol with the added benefit of shorter stimulation time (compared to traditional rTMS protocols). This increases efficiency and compliance in both research and clinical settings. Even though TBS applications in the primary motor cortex (M1) have been well-explored, scant attention has been paid to its impact on the primary visual cortex (V1). TBS includes two variants: Intermittent (iTBS; excitatory) and continuous (cTBS; inhibitory). In our lab, previous neuroimaging studies including magnetic resonance spectroscopy and resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging did not lead to notable alterations in GABA concentration in V1 or functional connectivity when V1 was stimulated with either cTBS or iTBS. However, we previously found significant effects when applying 1Hz rTMS to V1. This emphasises the need to understand TBS effects on visual brain areas and optimise TBS protocols accordingly. In this study, we explored cTBS' influence on M1 and V1 utilising stereotactic neuronavigation. We investigated the disparities in biophysical parameters such as scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD), electric fields at hotspots and stimulation intensities between M1 and V1. We used motor thresholds (MTs) for M1 stimulation and phosphene thresholds (PTs) for V1 stimulation as markers. Our preliminary results suggest that PTs are significantly higher than MTs despite longer SCD at V1, and shorter SCD at M1. In addition, we found that post-cTBS PTs increased in comparison to sham stimulation, hinting at an inhibitory aftereffect. However, both active and sham cTBS in M1 yielded to increased MTs. A profound understanding of the varied stimulation parameter effects and their location-specific variability is crucial for effective and efficient TMS protocol application in research and therapeutic contexts. These insights will facilitate tailoring TMS approaches to each target region's unique requirements, enhancing the overall effectiveness of TBS in vision research and clinical settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→