Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28509625›Full record

SynthesisPsychological science2017

Direct-Current Stimulation Does Little to Improve the Outcome of Working Memory Training in Older Adults.

Jonna Nilsson, Alexander V Lebedev, Anders Rydström, Martin Lövdén

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

Synthesis in Psychological science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04010149 (The Impact of Concurrent Brain Stimulation and Working Memory Training on Cognitive Performance in Acquired Brain Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT04010149 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Concurrent Brain Stimulation and Working Memory Training on Cognitive Performance in Acquired Brain Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BirminghamRan2019 to 2021Enrolled40ConditionsAcquired Brain InjuryArmsActive tDCS, SHAM tDCS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022
    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. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Using tDCS to facilitate motor learning in speech production: The role of timing.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2019
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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.

Jonna NilssonAging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University.
Alexander V LebedevAging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University.
Anders RydströmAging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University.
Martin LövdénAging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University.

Funding

European Research Council 617280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The promise of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) as a modulator of cognition has appealed to researchers, media, and the general public. Researchers have suggested that tDCS may increase effects of cognitive training. In this study of 123 older adults, we examined the interactive effects of 20 sessions of anodal tDCS over the left prefrontal cortex (vs. sham tDCS) and simultaneous working memory training (vs. control training) on change in cognitive abilities. Stimulation did not modulate gains from pre- to posttest on latent factors of either trained or untrained tasks in a statistically significant manner. A supporting meta-analysis ( n = 266), including younger as well as older individuals, showed that, when combined with training, tDCS was not much more effective than sham tDCS at changing working memory performance ( g = 0.07, 95% confidence interval, or CI = [-0.21, 0.34]) and global cognition performance ( g = -0.01, 95% CI = [-0.29, 0.26]) assessed in the absence of stimulation. These results question the general usefulness of current tDCS protocols for enhancing the effects of cognitive training on cognitive ability.

Indexed as

AgedCognitionCognitive Behavioral TherapyFemaleHumansLearningMaleMemory, Short-TermNeuropsychological TestsPrefrontal CortexTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTransfer, PsychologyTreatment Outcomebrain stimulationcognitive trainingtDCStransferworking memory training

Identifiers

PMID28509625
PMCPMC5536199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.