Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36669446›Full record

ArticleCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2023

Pre-frontal stimulation does not reliably increase reward responsiveness.

L M Hadden, H Penny, A L Jones, A M Partridge, T M Lancaster, C Allen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

L M HaddenCardiff University, School of Psychology, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK.
H PennyCardiff University, School of Psychology, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK; Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, St Cadoc's Hospital, Lodge Road, Caerleon, NP18 3XQ, UK.
A L JonesSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health, and Life Sciences, Singleton Park, Swansea University, SA2 8PP, UK.
A M PartridgeUniversity of Sheffield, Research Services, New Spring House, 231 Glossop Road, Sheffield, S10 2GW, UK.
T M LancasterCardiff University, School of Psychology, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK; University of Bath, Department of Psychology, Claverton Down, BA2 7AY, UK.
C AllenCardiff University, School of Psychology, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK; Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK. Electronic address: allencp@cardiff.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104943/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide and its effects can be fatal, with over 800,000 people dying by suicide each year. Neuromodulatory treatments such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are being used to treat depression. Despite its endorsement by two regulatory bodies: NICE (2016) and the FDA (2008), there are major questions about the treatment efficacy and biological mechanisms of TMS. Ahn et al.'s (2013) justified the use of TMS in a clinical context in an important study indicating that excitatory TMS increases reward responsiveness. A pseudo-replication of this study by Duprat et al., (2016) also found a similar effect of active TMS, but only with the addition of an exploratory covariate to the analyses-trait reward responsiveness. Here we replicate Ahn et al.'s (2013) key study, and to test the reliability of the effects, and their dependency on trait reward responsiveness as described by Duprat et al., (2016). Using excitatory and sham TMS, we tested volunteers using the probabilistic learning task to measure their reward responsiveness both before and after stimulation. We also examined affect (positive, negative) following stimulation. Irrespective of TMS, the task was shown to be sensitive to reward responsiveness. However, we did not show TMS to be effective in increasing reward responsiveness and we did not replicate Ahn et al., (2013) or Duprat et al., (2016)'s key findings for TMS efficacy, where we provide evidence favouring the null. Moreover, exploratory analyses suggested following active stimulation, positive affect was reduced. Given our findings, we question the basic effects, which support the use of TMS for depression, particularly considering potential deleterious effects of reduced positive affect in patients with depression.

Indexed as

LearningTranscranial Magnetic StimulationHumansReproducibility of ResultsRewardTreatment OutcomeAnhedoniaDepressionReplicationReward responsivenessTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36669446
PMCPMC10823575

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.