Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33216408›Full record

Trial reportHuman brain mapping2021

Reliability, sensitivity, and predictive value of fMRI during multiple object tracking as a marker of cognitive training gain in combination with tDCS in stroke survivors.

Knut K Kolskår, Geneviève Richard, Dag Alnaes, Erlend S Dørum, Anne-Marthe Sanders, Kristine M Ulrichsen, Jennifer Monereo Sánchez, Hege Ihle-Hansen, Jan E Nordvik, Lars T Westlye

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Knut K KolskårNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3878-814X
Geneviève RichardNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6475-2576
Dag AlnaesNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7361-5418
Erlend S DørumNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Anne-Marthe SandersNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristine M UlrichsenNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jennifer Monereo SánchezNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hege Ihle-HansenDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jan E NordvikCatosenteret Rehabilitation Center, Son, Norway.
Lars T WestlyeNORMENT, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8644-956X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computerized cognitive training (CCT) combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has showed some promise in alleviating cognitive impairments in patients with brain disorders, but the robustness and possible mechanisms are unclear. In this prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial, we investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of combining CCT and tDCS, and tested the predictive value of and training-related changes in fMRI-based brain activation during attentive performance (multiple object tracking) obtained at inclusion, before initiating training, and after the three-weeks intervention in chronic stroke patients (>6 months since hospital admission). Patients were randomized to one of two groups, receiving CCT and either (a) tDCS targeting left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (1 mA), or (b) sham tDCS, with 40s active stimulation (1 mA) before fade out of the current. Of note, 77 patients were enrolled in the study, 54 completed the cognitive training, and 48 completed all training and MRI sessions. We found significant improvement in performance across all trained tasks, but no additional gain of tDCS. fMRI-based brain activation showed high reliability, and higher cognitive performance was associated with increased tracking-related activation in the dorsal attention network and default mode network as well as anterior cingulate after compared to before the intervention. We found no significant associations between cognitive gain and brain activation measured before training or in the difference in activation after intervention. Combined, these results show significant training effects on trained cognitive tasks in stroke survivors, with no clear evidence of additional gain of concurrent tDCS.

Indexed as

Cognitive RemediationFunctional NeuroimagingMagnetic Resonance ImagingOutcome Assessment, Health CareStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAgedCognitive DysfunctionCombined Modality TherapyDouble-Blind MethodFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of Testscognitive trainingfMRIrehabilitationstroketDCS

Identifiers

PMID33216408
PMCPMC7856645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.