Home › Research › Prevention trials
Impact of 3-Day Combined Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation-Visuospatial Training on Object-Location Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
de Sousa AVC, Grittner U, Rujescu D, Külzow N, Flöel A.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2020-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Associative object-location memory (OLM) is known to decline even in normal aging, and this process is accelerated in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Given the lack of curative treatment for Alzheimer's disease, activating cognitive resources during its preclinical phase might prevent progression to dementia. Objective To evaluate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) combined with an associative episodic memory training on OLM in MCI patients and in healthy elderly (HE). Methods In a single-blind cross-over design, 16 MCI patients and 32 HE underwent a 3-day visuospatial OLM training paired with either 20 min or 30 s (sham) atDCS (1 mA, right temporoparietal cortex). Effects on immediate (training success) and long-term memory (1-month) were investigated by conducting Mixed Model analyses. In addition, the impact of combined intervention on within-session (online) and on between-session (offline) performance were explored. Results OLM training+atDCS enhanced training success only in MCI patients, but not HE (difference n.s.). Relative performance gain was similar in MCI patients compared to HE under atDCS. No beneficial effect was found after 1-month. Exploratory analyses suggested a positive impact on online, but a negative effect on offline performance in MCI patients. In both groups, exploratory post-hoc analyses indicated an association between initially low-performers and greater benefit from atDCS. Conclusion Cognitive training in MCI may be enhanced by atDCS, but further delineation of the impact of current brain state, as well as temporal characteristics of multi-session atDCS-training application, may be needed to induce longer-lasting effects.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
de Sousa, A. V. C., Grittner, U., Rujescu, D., Külzow, N., & Flöel, A. (2020). Impact of 3-Day Combined Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation-Visuospatial Training on Object-Location Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-191234
Vancouver
de Sousa AVC, Grittner U, Rujescu D, Külzow N, Flöel A. Impact of 3-Day Combined Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation-Visuospatial Training on Object-Location Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2020. doi:10.3233/jad-191234. PMID: 32280093.
BibTeX
@article{desousa2020-32280093,
author = {de Sousa, A. V. C. and Grittner, U. and Rujescu, D. and Külzow, N. and Flöel, A.},
title = {{Impact of 3-Day Combined Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation-Visuospatial Training on Object-Location Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3233/jad-191234},
pmid = {32280093},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-191234}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results OLM training+atDCS enhanced training success only in MCI patients, but not HE (difference n.s.).
- Relative performance gain was similar in MCI patients compared to HE under atDCS.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designpost-hoc analysis
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomized / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32280093) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.