Inferior parietal transcranial direct current stimulation with training improves cognition in anomic Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve picture-naming abilities in subjects with anomic Alzheimer or frontotemporal dementias. METHODS: Using a double-blind crossover design, 10 participants were trained on picture naming over a series of 10 sessions with either 30 minutes of anodal (2 mA) tDCS stimulation to the left inferior parieto-temporal region (P3) or sham stimulation. We evaluated performance on a trained picture-naming list, an equivalent untrained list, and additional neuropsychological tasks. RESULTS: < .01), lasting at least 2 weeks after stimulation. Furthermore, these participants showed a small increase for untrained picture-naming items and digit span when they received real stimulation but a decrease when sham stimulation was received. DISCUSSION: tDCS stimulation has promise as a treatment for anomia in demented individuals and the effect can generalize to unstudied items as well as other cognitive abilities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".