The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive performance in youth with persistent cognitive symptoms following concussion: a controlled pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Explore the feasibility, tolerability, and early efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a therapeutic intervention for youth with cognitive persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). HYPOTHESIS: tDCS improves performance on a dual task working memory (WM) paradigm in youth with cognitive PPCS. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve youth experiencing cognitive PPCS. DESIGN: A quasi-randomized pilot trial was used to explore the tolerability of, and performance differences on, a dual N-Back WM task paired with active or sham tDCS over 3 sessions. MEASURES: Accuracy and reaction time on WM task and self-report of tDCS tolerability. RESULTS: Trends toward increases in accuracy from Day 1 to 3 seen in both groups. Active tDCS group performed better than sham on Day 2 in N-Back level N2 (p = .019), and marginally better than the sham group on Day 3 in level N3 (p = .26). Participants reported tDCS as tolerable; compared to the active tDCS group, the sham group reported more "considerable" (p = .078) and "strong" symptoms (p = .097). CONCLUSION: tDCS is a promising tool for enhancing WM performance and is a feasible and tolerable adjunct to behavioral interventions in youth with cognitive PPCS. A clinical trial to demonstrate efficacy is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".