MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914803529 · doi:10.1111/ejn.14349

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over right posterior parietal cortex on attention function in healthy young adults

2019· article· en· W2914803529 on OpenAlexaff
On‐Yee Lo, Paul van Donkelaar, Li‐Shan Chou

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationPosterior parietal cortexPsychologyAttention networkNeuroscienceStimulationAttentional controlBrain stimulationAudiologyCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention involves three distinct networks for alerting, orienting, and executive control. Interventions targeting the specific attentional networks remain lacking. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to modulate cortical excitability, which potentially serves as an interventional tool to treat individuals with attention impairment. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of applying tDCS over the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC) on the performance of the three attentional networks. Twenty-six healthy young adults performed the Attention Network Test before and after anodal or sham tDCS stimulation over the right PPC. The alerting, orienting, and executive effects were assessed before and after the stimulation. The results demonstrated that the orienting effect was significantly improved after real tDCS relative to sham, whereas the alerting and executive control effects remained unaffected. Consistent with previous clinical and functional imaging studies, this suggests that the right PPC is actively engaged with the spatial orienting of attention.

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)0.001
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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207