ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2025
Differential Effects of Cerebellar tDCS on Sequential Mentalizing.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cerebellum has been increasingly recognized for its role in social cognition, particularly in mentalizing processes. A way to measure mentalizing is the picture sequencing task, a well-established measure of social action sequencing during mentalizing of other’s beliefs. Recent studies have shown that cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation can affect social sequence processing in adults, however, the effects of different types of stimulation remain unclear. Therefore, in this study, we examined the effects of a novel and more focal montage of cerebellar tDCS on the picture sequencing task in healthy adults. Using a within-participant design, 35 participants completed three sessions in which they underwent anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation (in a counterbalanced order). Results revealed that participants were consistently slower on sequences that required complex mentalizing compared to well-known social situations and non-social events. Anodal tDCS significantly speeded up reaction times from the second session (indicating an improvement in performance), sham tDCS showed the same improvement in the third session (indicating general improved familiarity with the task), while cathodal tDCS did not change performance. This interaction between stimulation type and session suggests that anodal tDCS may accelerate sequence learning, while cathodal tDCS may inhibit it. Accuracy results reflected a similar pattern, with improvements over time driven by the stimulation-learning interaction. In conclusion, cerebellar tDCS modulates performance with anodal stimulation enhancing processing speed and learning. More importantly, the interaction between the different types of stimulation and learning reinforces the importance of the cerebellum in social learning processes.
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.