Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23328908›Full record

Trial reportCerebellum (London, England)2013

Modulating human procedural learning by cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation.

Roberta Ferrucci, Andre R Brunoni, Marta Parazzini, Maurizio Vergari, Elena Rossi, Manuela Fumagalli, Francesca Mameli, Manuela Rosa, Gaia Giannicola, Stefano Zago and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cerebellum (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Does M1 anodal transcranial direct current stimulation affects online and offline motor learning in patients with multiple sclerosis?Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Roberta FerrucciCentro Clinico per la Neurostimolazione, le Neurotecnologie ed i Disordini del Movimento, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Andre R Brunoni
Marta Parazzini
Maurizio Vergari
Elena Rossi
Manuela Fumagalli
Francesca Mameli
Manuela Rosa
Gaia Giannicola
Stefano Zago
Alberto Priori
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITUniversity of Milan · ITNational Research Council · ITUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies suggest that the cerebellum contributes to human cognitive processing, particularly procedural learning. This type of learning is often described as implicit learning and involves automatic, associative, and unintentional learning processes. Our aim was to investigate whether cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) influences procedural learning as measured by the serial reaction time task (SRTT), in which subjects make speeded key press responses to visual cues. A preliminary modeling study demonstrated that our electrode montage (active electrode over the cerebellum with an extra-cephalic reference) generated the maximum electric field amplitude in the cerebellum. We enrolled 21 healthy subjects (aged 20-49 years). Participants did the SRTT, a visual analogue scale and a visual attention task, before and 35 min after receiving 20-min anodal and sham cerebellar tDCS in a randomized order. To avoid carry-over effects, experimental sessions were held at least 1 week apart. For our primary outcome measure (difference in RTs for random and repeated blocks) anodal versus sham tDCS, RTs were significantly slower for sham tDCS than for anodal cerebellar tDCS (p = 0.04), demonstrating that anodal tDCS influenced implicit learning processes. When we assessed RTs for procedural learning across the one to eight blocks, we found that RTs changed significantly after anodal stimulation (interaction "time" × "blocks 1/8": anodal, p = 0.006), but after sham tDCS, they remained unchanged (p = 0.094). No significant changes were found in the other variables assessed. Our finding that anodal cerebellar tDCS improves an implicit learning type essential to the development of several motor skills or cognitive activity suggests that the cerebellum has a critical role in procedural learning. tDCS could be a new tool for improving procedural learning in daily life in healthy subjects and for correcting abnormal learning in neuropsychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

AdultCerebellumFemaleHumansLearningMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationReaction TimeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23328908
OpenAlexW2011031180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.