Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31062282›Full record

ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2019

The Effect of Cerebellar tDCS on Sequential Motor Response Selection.

Bryant J Jongkees, Maarten A Immink, Olga D Boer, Fatemeh Yavari, Michael A Nitsche, Lorenza S Colzato

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Bryant J JongkeesCognitive Psychology Unit & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK, Leiden, The Netherlands. b.j.jongkees@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7333-0137
Maarten A ImminkSchool of Health Sciences & Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Olga D BoerCognitive Psychology Unit & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Fatemeh YavariLeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Technical University Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Michael A NitscheLeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Technical University Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Lorenza S ColzatoCognitive Psychology Unit & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University · NLTU Dortmund University · DEUniversity of Kassel · DEUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

NWO 452-12-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) transiently alters cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity. So far, few studies have investigated the behavioral effects of applying tDCS to the cerebellum. Given the cerebellum's inhibitory effects on cortical motor areas as well as its role in fine motor control and motor coordination, we investigated whether cerebellar tDCS can modulate response selection processes and motor sequence learning. Seventy-two participants received either cerebellar anodal (excitatory), cathodal (inhibitory), or sham (placebo) tDCS while performing a serial reaction time task (SRTT). To compare acute and long-term effects of stimulation on behavioral performance, participants came back for follow-up testing at 24 h after stimulation. Results indicated no group differences in performance prior to tDCS. During stimulation, tDCS did not affect sequence-specific learning, but anodal as compared to cathodal and sham stimulations did modulate response selection processes. Specifically, anodal tDCS increased response latencies independent of whether a trained or transfer sequence was being performed, although this effect became smaller throughout training. At the 24-h follow-up, the group that previously received anodal tDCS again demonstrated increased response latencies, but only when the previously trained sequence and a transfer sequence had to be performed in the same experimental block. This increased behavioral interference tentatively points to a detrimental effect of anodal cerebellar tDCS on sequence consolidation/retention. These results are consistent with the notion that the cerebellum exerts an inhibitory effect on cortical motor areas, which can impair sequential response selection when this inhibition is strengthened by tDCS.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAdolescentAdultCerebellumFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexMotor SkillsPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeSerial LearningYoung AdultCerebellumResponse selectionSequence learningSerial reaction time taskTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31062282
PMCPMC6647497
OpenAlexW2944384170

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.