Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30901345›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Online repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation during working memory in younger and older adults: A randomized within-subject comparison.

L Beynel, S W Davis, C A Crowell, S A Hilbig, W Lim, D Nguyen, H Palmer, A Brito, A V Peterchev, B Luber and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Noninvasive neuromodulation of the prefrontal cortex in mental health disorders.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    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

13 authors.

L BeynelDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8670-7178
S W DavisDepartment of Neurology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
C A CrowellDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
S A HilbigDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
W LimDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
D NguyenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
H PalmerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
A BritoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
A V PeterchevDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4385-065X
B LuberNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
S H LisanbyNational Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
R CabezaCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
L G AppelbaumDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Non-invasive Neuromodulation Unit (NNU)ZIAMH002955 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI ZARATE, CARLOS · 2016 to 2025
$40.3M
Using fMRI-guided TMS to increase central executive function in older adults - Administrative SupplementU01AG050618 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI APPELBAUM, LAWRENCE G., CABEZA, ROBERTO · 2016 to 2019
$2.3M
Using fMRI-guided TMS to increase central executive function in older adultsR01AG050618 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI APPELBAUM, LAWRENCE G., CABEZA, ROBERTO · 2015 to 2015
$497k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG050618
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory is the ability to perform mental operations on information that is stored in a flexible, limited capacity buffer. The ability to manipulate information in working memory is central to many aspects of human cognition, but also declines with healthy aging. Given the profound importance of such working memory manipulation abilities, there is a concerted effort towards developing approaches to improve them. The current study tested the capacity to enhance working memory manipulation with online repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy young and older adults. Online high frequency (5Hz) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to test the hypothesis that active repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation would lead to significant improvements in memory recall accuracy compared to sham stimulation, and that these effects would be most pronounced in working memory manipulation conditions with the highest cognitive demand in both young and older adults. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied while participants were performing a delayed response alphabetization task with three individually-titrated levels of difficulty. The left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was identified by combining electric field modeling to individualized functional magnetic resonance imaging activation maps and was targeted during the experiment using stereotactic neuronavigation with real-time robotic guidance, allowing optimal coil placement during the stimulation. As no accuracy differences were found between young and older adults, the results from both groups were collapsed. Subsequent analyses revealed that active stimulation significantly increased accuracy relative to sham stimulation, but only for the hardest condition. These results point towards further investigation of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for memory enhancement focusing on high difficulty conditions as those most likely to exhibit benefits.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsPrefrontal CortexSingle-Blind MethodTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30901345
PMCPMC6430375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.