Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35592391›Full record

ArticleCerebral cortex communications2022

Boosting working memory: uncovering the differential effects of tDCS and tACS.

Daniel Senkowski, Rabea Sobirey, David Haslacher, Surjo R Soekadar

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebral cortex communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel SenkowskiCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité Campus Mitte (CCM), Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1467-8264
Rabea SobireyCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité Campus Mitte (CCM), Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
David HaslacherCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité Campus Mitte (CCM), Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Surjo R SoekadarCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité Campus Mitte (CCM), Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is essential for reasoning, decision-making, and problem solving. Recently, there has been an increasing effort in improving WM through noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), especially transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation (tDCS/tACS). Studies suggest that tDCS and tACS can modulate WM performance, but large variability in research approaches hinders the identification of optimal stimulation protocols and interpretation of study results. Moreover, it is unclear whether tDCS and tACS differentially affect WM. Here, we summarize and compare studies examining the effects of tDCS and tACS on WM performance in healthy adults. Following PRISMA-selection criteria, our systematic review resulted in 43 studies (29 tDCS, 11 tACS, 3 both) with a total of 1826 adult participants. For tDCS, only 4 out of 23 single-session studies reported effects on WM, while 7 out of 9 multi-session experiments showed positive effects on WM training. For tACS, 10 out of 14 studies demonstrated effects on WM, which were frequency dependent and robust for frontoparietal stimulation. Our review revealed no reliable effect of single-session tDCS on WM but moderate effects of multi-session tDCS and single-session tACS. We discuss the implications of these findings and future directions in the emerging research field of NIBS and WM.

Indexed as

attentioncognitionnoninvasive brain stimulationoscillationssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35592391
PMCPMC9113288
OpenAlexW4285079367

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.