Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29593522›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2018

Frontoparietal tDCS Benefits Visual Working Memory in Older Adults With Low Working Memory Capacity.

Hector Arciniega, Filiz Gözenman, Kevin T Jones, Jaclyn A Stephens, Marian E Berryhill

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hector ArciniegaMemory and Brain Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Program in Cognitive and Brain Sciences, and Integrative Neuroscience, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, United States.
Filiz GözenmanDepartment of Psychology, Yaşar University, İzmir, Turkey.
Kevin T JonesDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Jaclyn A StephensDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Marian E BerryhillMemory and Brain Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Program in Cognitive and Brain Sciences, and Integrative Neuroscience, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, United States.
Colorado State University · USUniversity of Nevada, Reno · USYaşar University · TR

Funding

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality CoreP20GM103650 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO · PI WEBSTER, MICHAEL A · 2012 to 2022
$20.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103650
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM) permits maintenance of information over brief delays and is an essential executive function. Unfortunately, WM is subject to age-related decline. Some evidence supports the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve visual WM. A gap in knowledge is an understanding of the mechanism characterizing these tDCS linked effects. To address this gap, we compared the effects of two tDCS montages designed on visual working memory (VWM) performance. The bifrontal montage was designed to stimulate the heightened bilateral frontal activity observed in aging adults. The unilateral frontoparietal montage was designed to stimulate activation patterns observed in young adults. Participants completed three sessions (bilateral frontal, right frontoparietal, sham) of anodal tDCS (20 min, 2 mA). During stimulation, participants performed a visual long-term memory (LTM) control task and a visual WM task. There was no effect of tDCS on the LTM task. Participants receiving right unilateral tDCS showed a WM benefit. This pattern was most robust in older adults with low WM capacity. To address the concern that the key difference between the two tDCS montages could be tDCS over the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), we included new analyses from a previous study applying tDCS targeting the PPC paired with a recognition VWM task. No significant main effects were found. A subsequent experiment in young adults found no significant effect of either tDCS montage on either task. These data indicate that tDCS montage, age and WM capacity should be considered when designing tDCS protocols. We interpret these findings as suggestive that protocols designed to restore more youthful patterns of brain activity are superior to those that compensate for age-related changes.

Indexed as

agingtDCSvisual working memoryvisual working memory capacityworking memory

Identifiers

PMID29593522
PMCPMC5859363
OpenAlexW2793016637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.