Pulsed inhibition of corticospinal excitability by the thalamocortical sleep spindle
Bibliographic record
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 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, where slower oscillations group faster ones into certain excitability phases, 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 to characterize the corticospinal excitability profile of spindles via motor evoked potentials (MEP). MEPs showed net suppression during spindles, driven by a "pulse of inhibition" during its falling flank with no inhibition or facilitation during its peak, rising flank, or trough. This unidirectional ("asymmetric") modulation occurred on top of the general sleep-related inhibition during spindle-free NREM sleep and did not extend into the refractory post-spindle periods. We conclude that spindles exert "asymmetric pulsed inhibition" on corticospinal excitability. These findings and the developed real-time spindle targeting methods enable future studies to investigate the causal role of spindles in phase-dependent synaptic plasticity and systems memory consolidation during sleep by repetitively targeting relevant spindle phases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".