A Study of Null Effects for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Adults With and Without Reading Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence to support the hypothesis that the delivery of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the left temporoparietal junction can enhance performance on reading speed and reading accuracy (Costanzo et al., 2016b; Heth & Lavidor, 2015). Here, we explored whether we could demonstrate similar effects in adults with and without reading impairments. METHOD: = 29) reading impairment were randomly assigned to anodal or sham stimulation conditions. All individuals underwent a battery of reading assessments pre and post stimulation. The stimulation session involved 15 min of anodal/sham stimulation over the left temporoparietal junction while concurrently completing a computerized nonword segmentation task known to activate the temporoparietal junction. RESULTS: There were no conclusive findings that anodal stimulation impacted reading performance for skilled or impaired readers. CONCLUSIONS: While tDCS may provide useful gains on reading performance in the paediatric population, much more work is needed to establish the parameters under which such findings would transfer to adult populations. The documentation, reporting, and interpreting of null effects of tDCS are immensely important to a field that is growing exponentially with much uncertainty.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".