Alpha rhythm transcranial electrical stimulation to inferior parietal cortex increases alpha power and phase synchrony while attending to mind–body self-states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-referential processing (SRP) refers to the human brain's response to semantic and somatic self-related information. Recent developments in modulating semantic and somatic SRP using non-invasive brain stimulation supported the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in modulating alpha electroencephalography (alpha-EEG) during SRP. Meanwhile, although alpha transcranial alternating current stimulation (alpha-tACS) shows greater efficacy in modulating alpha-EEG, the efficacy of alpha-tACS for modulating alpha-EEG during SRP has not been evaluated. The current study investigates the effects of alpha-tACS compared to sham stimulation over the medial prefrontal cortex and the bilateral inferior parietal lobule on alpha-EEG during both semantic and somatic SRP in two separate experiments. Semantic SRP was provoked by introspection on life roles (e.g., "friend"), while somatic SRP was provoked by interoception upon sensations occurring in the exterior body (e.g., "shoulders") during the experimental task, and alpha-EEG responses during SRP were compared to those occurring during resting state and an external attention control condition. Results indicated that while alpha-tACS to the medial prefrontal cortex did not produce significant source-level alpha-EEG changes, alpha-tACS to inferior parietal cortex increased alpha-EEG source power and phase synchrony when participants received real stimulation during the first experimental session. An exploratory analysis also indicated that real stimulation reduced alpha-EEG power during semantic but not somatic SRP during the first session but not the second session. Our results demonstrate that while alpha-tACS can modulate alpha-EEG during SRP, the effects may be dependent on the ordering of real vs. sham stimulation sessions and stimulation sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".