MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2385222830 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw114

Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation Can Enhance Motor Learning in Children

2016· article· en· W2385222830 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Ciechanski, Adam Kirton

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationMotor learningPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPrimary motor cortexTolerabilityCerebral palsySupplementary motor areaMotor cortexMedicineAudiologyAdverse effectPhysical therapyStimulationNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) on motor learning in healthy school-aged children. Safety, tolerability, and translation of effects to untrained tasks were also explored. We recruited 24 right-handed children for a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded trial to receive: right primary motor cortex (M1) 1 mA anodal (1A-tDCS), left M1 1 mA cathodal (1C-tDCS), left M1 2 mA cathodal tDCS (2C-tDCS), or sham tDCS over 3 consecutive days of motor task practice. Participants trained their left hand to perform the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT) during tDCS application. Right hand and bimanual PPT, the Jebsen-Taylor Test (JTT), and the Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) were tested at baseline and post-training. All measures were retested 6 weeks later. Active tDCS montages enhanced motor learning compared with sham (all P < 0.002). Effects were sustained at 6 weeks. Effect sizes were large and comparable across montages: contralateral 1A-tDCS (Cohen's d = 2.58) and ipsilateral 1C-tDCS (3.44) and 2C-tDCS (2.76). Performance in the untrained hand PPT, bilateral JTT, and SRTT often improved with tDCS. tDCS was well-tolerated and safe with no adverse events. These first principles will advance the pairing of tDCS with therapy to enhance rehabilitation for disabled children such as those with cerebral palsy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207