Effects of High-Definition and Conventional Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation on Motor Learning in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve motor learning in children. High-definition approaches (HD-tDCS) have not been examined in children. Objectives/Hypothesis: We hypothesized that primary motor cortex HD-tDCS would enhance motor learning but be inferior to tDCS in children. Methods: Twenty-four children were recruited for a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded interventional trial (NCT03193580, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03193580) to receive 1) right hemisphere (contralateral) primary motor cortex (M1) 1mA anodal conventional 1x1 tDCS (tDCS), 2) right M1 1mA anodal 4x1 HD-tDCS (HD-tDCS), or 3) sham. Over five consecutive days, participants trained their left hand using the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPTL). The Jebsen-Taylor Test, Serial Reaction Time Task, and right hand and bimanual PPT were also tested at baseline, post-training, and 6-week retention time (RT). Results: Both the tDCS and HD-tDCS groups demonstrated enhanced motor learning compared to sham with effects maintained at six weeks. Effect sizes were moderate-to-large for tDCS and HD-tDCS groups at the end of day 4 (Cohen’s d tDCS=0.960, HD-tDCS=0.766) and day 5. (tDCS=0.655, HD-tDCS=0.851). Enhanced motor learning effects were also seen in the untrained hand. HD-tDCS was well tolerated and safe with no adverse effects. Conclusions: HD-tDCS and tDCS can enhance motor learning in children. Further exploration is indicated to advance rehabilitation therapies for children with motor disabilities such as 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".