Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30385222›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Cognitive enhancement with Salience Network electrical stimulation is influenced by network structural connectivity.

Lucia M Li, Ines R Violante, Rob Leech, Adam Hampshire, Alexander Opitz, David McArthur, David W Carmichael, David J Sharp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Aesthetic experience models human learning.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Lucia M LiComputational, Cognitive and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, W12 0NN, UK.
Ines R ViolanteDepartment of Psychology, University of Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
Rob LeechCentre for Neuroimaging Science, Denmark Hill, SE5 8AF, UK.
Adam HampshireComputational, Cognitive and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, W12 0NN, UK.
Alexander OpitzDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
David McArthurDavid Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
David W CarmichaelBiomedical Engineering Department, Kings College London, SE1 7EP, UK.
David J SharpComputational, Cognitive and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, W12 0NN, UK. Electronic address: David.sharp@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Defining Neuronal Circuits and Cellular Processes Underlying Resting fMRI SignalsR01MH111439 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI MILHAM, MICHAEL PETER, SCHROEDER, CHARLES E · 2016 to 2020
$5.1M
Effects of brain stimulation on neuronal dynamics and behaviorR21MH110217 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI SCHROEDER, CHARLES E · 2016 to 2017
$445k
Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-048NIH HHS MH110217NIH HHS MH111439NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111439NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH110217Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Salience Network (SN) and its interactions are important for cognitive control. We have previously shown that structural damage to the SN is associated with abnormal functional connectivity between the SN and Default Mode Network (DMN), abnormal DMN deactivation, and impaired response inhibition, which is an important aspect of cognitive control. This suggests that stimulating the SN might enhance cognitive control. Here, we tested whether non-invasive transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) could be used to modulate activity within the SN and enhance cognitive control. TDCS was applied to the right inferior frontal gyrus/anterior insula cortex during performance of the Stop Signal Task (SST) and concurrent functional (f)MRI. Anodal TDCS improved response inhibition. Furthermore, stratification of participants based on SN structural connectivity showed that it was an important influence on both behavioural and physiological responses to anodal TDCS. Participants with high fractional anisotropy within the SN showed improved SST performance and increased activation of the SN with anodal TDCS, whilst those with low fractional anisotropy within the SN did not. Cathodal stimulation of the SN produced activation of the right caudate, an effect which was not modulated by SN structural connectivity. Our results show that stimulation targeted to the SN can improve response inhibition, supporting the causal influence of this network on cognitive control and confirming it as a target to produce cognitive enhancement. Our results also highlight the importance of structural connectivity as a modulator of network to TDCS, which should guide the design and interpretation of future stimulation studies.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAdultBrainBrain MappingCognitionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNerve NetCognitive controlFractional anisotropyFunctional MRIResponse inhibitionSalience NetworkStop Signal TaskTDCSTranscranial direct current stimulationWhite matter tract

Identifiers

PMID30385222
PMCPMC6299257

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.