Sensory stimuli dominate over rhythmic electrical stimulation in modulating behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural tracking (entrainment) of auditory rhythms enhances perception. We previously demonstrated that transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) can enhance or suppress entrainment to rhythmic auditory stimuli, depending on the timing between the electrical and auditory signals, although tACS effects are primarily modulatory. This study further investigated entrainment to tACS and auditory rhythms when the electrical and auditory signals were presented together (Experiment 1, N = 34) or independently (Experiment 2, N = 24; Experiment 3, N = 12). We hypothesized that tACS effects would be more pronounced when the auditory rhythm was made less perceptually salient to reduce the competition with the electrical rhythm. Participants detected silent gaps in modulated or unmodulated noise stimuli. In Experiment 1, auditory stimuli predominated in entraining behavior. While behavioral entrainment to sound rhythms was affected by the modulation depth of the auditory stimulus, entrainment to tACS was not. In Experiment 2, with no rhythmic information from the sound, 17 of 24 participants showed significant behavioral entrainment to tACS, although the most effective tACS frequency varied across participants. An oscillator model with a free parameter for the individual resonance frequency produced profiles similar to those we observed behaviorally. In Experiment 3, both neural and behavioral entrainment to rhythmic sounds were affected by the auditory stimulus frequency, but again the most effective entraining frequency varied across participants. Our findings suggest that tACS effects depend on the individual's preferred frequency when there is no competition with sensory stimuli, emphasizing the importance of targeting individual frequencies in tACS experiments. When both sensory and electrical stimuli are rhythmic and compete, sensory stimuli prevail, indicating the superiority of sensory stimulation in modulating behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".