Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40568436›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2021

Investigating the brain regions involved in tDCS-Enhanced category learning using finite element modeling.

Aaron P Jones, Monica Goncalves-Garcia, Benjamin Gibson, Michael C S Trumbo, Brian A Coffman, Bradley Robert, Hope A Gill, Teagan Mullins, Michael A Hunter, Charles S H Robinson and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

14 authors.

Aaron P JonesPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Monica Goncalves-GarciaPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Benjamin GibsonPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Michael C S TrumboPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Brian A CoffmanPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Bradley RobertPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Hope A GillPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Teagan MullinsPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Michael A HunterPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Charles S H RobinsonPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Angela CombsPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Niranjan KhadkaHarvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, MA, USA.
Marom BiksonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Vincent P ClarkPsychology Clinical Neuroscience Center, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) influences performance in many cognitive domains. However, the question of which brain networks are involved in these effects is rarely examined. In prior experiments we identified tDCS protocols that produce a large improvement in category learning. Here we examined which brain regions were involved by modelling and comparing the behavioral effects of different electrode placements. In Experiment 1, we placed electrodes at two cephalic sites found the be most effective in our prior studies (F10 and T5/P7), expecting an increased combined effect. However, no effect was found, suggesting that stimulation of additional far field regions using extracephalic electrodes in our prior studies may have been necessary for producing these effects. In Experiment 2, we used finite element modeling (FEM) to compare the E-fields produced by these montages. One region with large differences and that is accessible to tDCS was the cerebellum. We then tested the involvement of the cerebellum by placing electrodes below the inion vs. the left arm in thirty-six participants who received anodal, cathodal, or sham stimulation during training. Neither anodal nor cathodal cerebellar tDCS led to significant changes when compared with sham. These results suggest that neither far-field stimulation of the cerebellum nor nearby cranial nerves played a large causal role in our previous tDCS studies. To our knowledge, this one of the first studies to systematically compare the behavioral and energetic effects produced by different montages to identify the specific brain regions involved in the behavioral responses to tDCS.

Indexed as

Category learningCerebellumFinite element modelingLearningTranscranial direct current stimulationVisual search

Identifiers

PMID40568436
PMCPMC12172920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.