Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31009813›Full record

ArticleCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2019

The effect of frontoparietal paired associative stimulation on decision-making and working memory.

Camilla L Nord, Traian Popa, Emma Smith, Ricci Hannah, Nuria Doñamayor, Kathrin Weidacker, Paul M Bays, John Rothwell, Valerie Voon

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

Article in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Targeted Modulation of Human Brain Interregional Effective Connectivity With Spike-Timing Dependent Plasticity.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Unwanted Memory Intrusions Recruit Broad Motor Suppression.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Camilla L NordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: Camilla.Nord@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
Traian PopaCenter for Neuroprosthetics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Emma SmithDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ricci HannahSobell Centre for Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London, London, UK.
Nuria DoñamayorDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Kathrin WeidackerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Paul M BaysDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
John RothwellSobell Centre for Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London, London, UK.
Valerie VoonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity College London · GBCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke · US

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_U105579215Medical Research Council MR/P008747/1Wellcome Trust 106926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous single-site neurostimulation experiments have unsuccessfully attempted to shift decision-making away from habitual control, a fast, inflexible cognitive strategy, towards goal-directed control, a flexible, though computationally expensive strategy. We employed a dual-target neurostimulation approach in 30 healthy participants, using cortico-cortical paired associative stimulation (ccPAS) to target two key nodes: lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) and intraparietal sulcus (IPS), to test whether decision-making can be artificially shifted from habitual toward goal-directed control. Participants received three active stimulations, delivered at least six days apart (each involving 100 paired pulses over the IPS and LPFC, varying the interstimulus interval): two interventional, time-relevant ccPAS (10 msec interval) and one control, non-time-relevant ccPAS (100 msec interval). Following stimulation, participants completed a sequential learning task, measuring goal-directed/habitual control, and a working memory task. IPS→LPFC ccPAS (stimulating IPS, then LPFC with a 10 msec interval) shifted decision-making from habitual toward goal-directed control, compared to control ccPAS. There was no effect of LPFC→IPS ccPAS, nor an effect of any PAS condition on working memory. Previous studies have shown ccPAS effects outside the motor domain targeting prefrontal regions on response inhibition, attentional bias, and alpha asymmetry. The present study measures the behavioural effects of parietal-prefrontal PAS, focusing on a highly complex decision-making task and working memory. If confirmed in larger studies, this would be the first instance of neurostimulation successfully shifting decision-making from habitual to goal-directed control, putatively via inducing long-term potentiation between the IPS and LPFC. However, we found no effect in the other direction (LPFC→IPS ccPAS), and no effect on working memory overall. PAS is a relatively new neuromodulatory technique in the cognitive arsenal, and this study could help guide future approaches in healthy and disordered decision-making.

Indexed as

AdultDecision MakingFemaleFrontal LobeHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedMotivationNeural PathwaysNeuropsychological TestsParietal LobeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung AdultDecision-makingGoal-directedHabitualPaired associative stimulationPsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID31009813
PMCPMC6664322
OpenAlexW2932838995

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.