The Effect and Mechanism of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Episodic Memory in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on episodic memory in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and analyze the neural mechanism of tDCS therapy from the perspective of neuroelectrophysiological parameters. Methods Forty MCI patients were recruited and randomly divided into a sham group ( n = 20) and a tDCS group ( n = 20). Patients in the tDCS group were treated with a tDCS instrument for 20 min, once a day, for 5 days. Patients in the sham group were treated with sham stimulus. Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS), and event-related potential (ERP) (amplitude and latency of P300 wave) were comparatively assessed between the two groups at pre-treatment, 5 days and 4 weeks post-treatment points. Results The two groups showed no significant difference in any of the assessed parameters at pre-treatment ( P > 0.05). At 5 days post-treatment, memory quotient (MQ) score in the tDCS group significantly increased ( P < 0.05), scores of picture memory, visual regeneration, logical memory, memory span, visual regeneration-delay, and logical memory-delay were significantly increased compared to pre-treatment ( P < 0.01). The P300 amplitude significantly increased, and its latency significantly shortened ( P < 0.01). Four weeks post-treatment, the scores of MQ and visual regeneration-delay in the tDCS group increased, compared to pre-treatment ( P < 0.05); picture memory, visual regeneration, logical memory, memory span, and logical memory-delay improved ( P < 0.01); the P300 amplitude increased, and its latency shortened ( P < 0.01). At 5 days and 4 weeks post-treatment points, the tDCS group, compared with the sham group ( P < 0.01), exhibited greater scores of MQ, picture memory, visual regeneration, logical memory, memory span, visual regeneration-delay, and logical memory-delay, increased P300 amplitude, and shortened P300 latency. Similarly, the tDCS group showed higher MQ scores at 5 days post-treatment ( P < 0.05) and 4 weeks post-treatment ( P < 0.01). Before treatment and after 5 days of treatment, P300 amplitude and latency difference were positively correlated with MQ difference ( P < 0.05). Conclusion tDCS improved episodic memory in MCI patients, and the effect lasted for 4 weeks. Changes in ERP (P300) suggested that tDCS could promote changes in brain function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".