Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38580452›Full record

SynthesiseNeuro2024

Probing Our Built-in Calculator: A Systematic Narrative Review of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Studies on Arithmetic Operation-Related Brain Areas.

Shane Fresnoza, Anja Ischebeck

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Shane FresnozaDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria shane.fresnoza@uni-graz.at.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9938-2285
Anja IschebeckDepartment of Psychology, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review presented a comprehensive survey of studies that applied transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electrical stimulation to parietal and nonparietal areas to examine the neural basis of symbolic arithmetic processing. All findings were compiled with regard to the three assumptions of the triple-code model (TCM) of number processing. Thirty-seven eligible manuscripts were identified for review (33 with healthy participants and 4 with patients). Their results are broadly consistent with the first assumption of the TCM that intraparietal sulcus both hold a magnitude code and engage in operations requiring numerical manipulations such as subtraction. However, largely heterogeneous results conflicted with the second assumption of the TCM that the left angular gyrus subserves arithmetic fact retrieval, such as the retrieval of rote-learned multiplication results. Support is also limited for the third assumption of the TCM, namely, that the posterior superior parietal lobule engages in spatial operations on the mental number line. Furthermore, results from the stimulation of brain areas outside of those postulated by the TCM show that the bilateral supramarginal gyrus is involved in online calculation and retrieval, the left temporal cortex in retrieval, and the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and cerebellum in online calculation of cognitively demanding arithmetic problems. The overall results indicate that multiple cortical areas subserve arithmetic skills.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBrainBrain MappingHumansMathematical ConceptsParietal Lobearithmeticmathematicsnoninvasive brain stimulationnumerical processingparietal cortextriple code model

Identifiers

PMID38580452
PMCPMC10999731

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.