ArticleScientific reports2019
Right hemisphere occipital rTMS impairs working memory in visualizers but not in verbalizers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Right-lateralized sleep spindles are associated with neutral over emotional bias in picture recognition: An overnight study.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Long Coronavirus Disease 2019 with Fatigue and Cognitive Dysfunction.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Alpha/beta-gamma decoupling in methylphenidate medicated ADHD patients.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Altered Spontaneous Brain Activity Patterns in Children With Strabismic Amblyopia After Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Relationship among number of close friends, subclinical geriatric depression, and subjective cognitive decline based on regional homogeneity of functional magnetic resonance imaging data.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Interpreting neural decoding models using grouped model reliance.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distinguishing between verbal and visual working memory processes is complicated by the fact that the strategy used is hard to control or even assess. Many stimuli used in working memory tasks can be processed via verbal or visual coding, such as the digits in the digit span backwards task (DSB). The present study used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to examine the use of visual processing strategies in the DSB. A total of 47 German university students took part in the study, 23 spontaneously using a verbal processing strategy and 24 using a visual strategy. After rTMS to the right occipital cortex, visualizers showed a significantly stronger mean performance decrease compared to verbalizers. The results indicate that the visual cortex is more critical for visualizers compared to verbalizers in the DSB task. Furthermore, the favored processing modality seems to be determined by the preference for a cognitive strategy rather than the presentation modality, and people are aware of the applied strategy. These findings provide insight into inter-individual differences in working memory processing and yield important implications for laboratory studies as well as clinical practice: the stimulus does not necessarily determine the processing and the participant can be aware of that.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.