Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25996937›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Anodal tDCS over the Primary Motor Cortex Facilitates Long-Term Memory Formation Reflecting Use-Dependent Plasticity.

Orjon Rroji, Kris van Kuyck, Bart Nuttin, Nicole Wenderoth

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05582616 (The Safety and Feasibility of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Conservative Treatment for Cervicogenic Headaches), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05582616 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Safety and Feasibility of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Conservative Treatment for Cervicogenic Headaches

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2022 to 2024Enrolled32ConditionsCervicogenic HeadacheArmsTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation, Sham Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Orjon RrojiDepartment of Kinesiology, Research Center for Movement Control and Neuroplasticity, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kris van KuyckDepartment of Neurosciences, Research Group Experimental Neurosurgery and Neuroanatomy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Bart NuttinDepartment of Neurosciences, Research Group Experimental Neurosurgery and Neuroanatomy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicole WenderothDepartment of Kinesiology, Research Center for Movement Control and Neuroplasticity, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Neural Control of Movement Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research suggests that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) modulates NMDA receptor dependent processes that mediate synaptic plasticity. Here we test this proposal by applying anodal versus sham tDCS while subjects practiced to flex the thumb as fast as possible (ballistic movements). Repetitive practice of this task has been shown to result in performance improvements that reflect use-dependent plasticity resulting from NMDA receptor mediated, long-term potentiation (LTP)-like processes. Using a double-blind within-subject cross-over design, subjects (n=14) participated either in an anodal or a sham tDCS session which were at least 3 months apart. Sham or anodal tDCS (1 mA) was applied for 20 min during motor practice and retention was tested 30 min, 24 hours and one week later. All subjects improved performance during each of the two sessions (p < 0.001) and learning gains were similar. Our main result is that long term retention performance (i.e. 1 week after practice) was significantly better when practice was performed with anodal tDCS than with sham tDCS (p < 0.001). This effect was large (Cohen's d=1.01) and all but one subject followed the group trend. Our data strongly suggest that anodal tDCS facilitates long-term memory formation reflecting use-dependent plasticity. Our results support the notion that anodal tDCS facilitates synaptic plasticity mediated by an LTP-like mechanism, which is in accordance with previous research.

Indexed as

Memory, Long-TermNeuronal PlasticityTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdolescentAdultCross-Over StudiesElectrodesFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25996937
PMCPMC4440644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.