MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412868255 · doi:10.1016/j.transm.2026.100324

Transcranial magnetic stimulation induced pupil dilations can serve as a cortical excitability measure

2025· preprint· en· W4412868255 on OpenAlexafffund
Phivos Phylactou, Fraser MacRae, Athina Manoli, Nicolas Bouisset, Arnaud Duport, Afreen A. Awan, Freek van Ede, David A. Seminowicz, Siobhan M. Schabrun

Bibliographic record

VenueTranscranial magnetic stimulation . · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteParkwood InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationMeasure (data warehouse)NeuroscienceStimulationCortical neuronsPsychologyPupilComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The application of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) often relies on proxy estimates of cortical excitability (CE), such as the resting motor threshold (rMT), measured through transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, estimating the rMT is not always possible, as it requires an intact corticospinal pathway for neural signals to travel from the cortex to the periphery. To broaden the application of NIBS there is a need for additional CE measures. In three experiments combining TMS, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and eye-tracking, we measured TMS-induced pupil dilations as a potential CE proxy. We present Bayesian evidence (Experiment 1: BF > 9; Experiment 2: BF > 46; Experiment 3: BFs > 6) that TMS-induced pupil dilations serve as an objective CE proxy, with larger pupil size reflecting higher CE. We also show that these effects are not due to auditory, muscle, or sensory confounds. The introduction of this novel measure paves the way for a deeper understanding of CE by enabling objective NIBS measures beyond the motor cortex. Moving away from the reliance on the motor cortex would allow NIBS research and therapy to become more inclusive, allowing access to populations that are affected by damage along the corticospinal pathway.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranscranial magnetic stimulation .Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207