ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2025
Transcranial direct current stimulation over the temporal-parietal junction yields no lexical-semantic effects in logopenic primary progressive aphasia: a double-blind sham-controlled study.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding loss aversion by using tDCS stimulation on DLPFC and multiple ERP measures: A tDCS-EEG study.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation in Primary Progressive Aphasia Treatment: A Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Frontotemporal lobar degeneration therapeutic development pipeline: 2026.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has generated some promising outcomes in primary progressive aphasia (PPA). The logopenic variant (lv-PPA), one of the most frequent PPA phenotypes, erodes the temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) generating impaired lexical processing, rapidly extending to semantic deficits. Positive tDCS effects have been reported in several small-cohort studies but there is need for rigorous sham-controlled double-blind investigations to substantiate, or not, beneficial effects. We used a sham-controlled double-blind counter-balanced crossover design with 12 clinically and imaging-characterized lv-PPA patients applying, according to the principle of interhemispheric rivalry, anodal and cathodal tDCS over the left and right TPJ, respectively, as compared to sham. A letter fluency (lexical access), a picture-naming (lexical/semantic access), and a semantic-matching task (semantic access) were applied before and after tDCS. Computational modeling was used to characterize predicted cortical tDCS current distribution. Comparisons of post/pre-tDCS results did not show language improvement in any task. Finite element models showed impact for both tDCS modalities on the TPJ, but with lower radial field-strength when atrophy was implemented in the model. Correlation analyses on individual data, uncorrected for multiples comparisons, suggested that lesser aphasia severity and shorter disease duration are associated with more efficient tDCS effects. Our results showing the absence of significant tDCS outcomes in lv-PPA mitigate previous reports of positive tDCS effects with similar or smaller patient sample sizes, and they demonstrate the need for exploring factors influencing stimulation effects. Findings from computational modelling combined with our uncorrected correlation results suggest that tDCS use might be most appropriate in PPA patients having slight atrophy and aphasia severity. Future studies on larger patient populations are required for robust proof-of-concept regarding therapy use of tDCS in PPA.
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.