ArticleHeliyon2024
Single session and repeated anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex increases reflective thinking but not working memory updating performance.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has shown to have effects on different domains of cognition yet there is a gap in the literature regarding effects on reflective thinking performance. Objective: The current study investigated if single session and repeated anodal tDCS over the right DLPFC induces effects on judgment and decision-making performance and whether these are linked to working memory (updating) performance or cognitive inhibition. Methods: Participants received anodal tDCS over the right DLPFC once (plus sham tDCS in a second session) or twice (24 h apart). In the third group participants received a single session of sham stimulation only. Cognitive characteristic measures were administered pre-stimulation (thinking disposition, impulsivity, cognitive ability). Experimental tasks included two versions of the Cognitive Reflection Test (numeric vs verbal-CRT), a set of incongruent base-rate vignettes, and two working memory tests (Sternberg task and n-back task). Forty-eight participants (mean age = 26.08 ± 0.54 years; 27 females) were recruited. Results: Single sessions of tDCS were associated with an increase in reflective thinking performance compared to the sham conditions, with stimulation improving scores on incongruent base rate tasks as well as marginally improving numeric CRT scores (compared to sham), but not thinking tasks without a numeric component (verbal-CRT). Repeated anodal stimulation only improved numeric CRT scores. tDCS did not increase working memory (updating) performance. These findings could not be explained by a practice effect or a priori differences in cognitive characteristics or impulsivity across the experimental groups. Conclusion: The current results demonstrate the involvement of the right DLPFC in reflective thinking performance which cannot be explained by working memory (updating) performance or general cognitive characteristics of participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.