The effects of aerobic exercise and transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise (AE) may slow age-related cognitive decline. However, such cognition-sparing effects are not uniform across cognitive domains and studies. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of non-invasive brain stimulation and is also emerging as a potential alternative to pharmaceutical therapies. Like AE, the effectiveness of tDCS is also inconsistent for reducing cognitive impairment in ageing. The unexplored possibility exists that pairing AE and tDCS could produce synergistic effects and reciprocally augment cognition-improving effects in older individuals with and without cognitive impairments. Previous research found such synergistic effects on cognition when cognitive training is paired with tDCS in older individuals with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. AIM: The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to explore if pairing AE with tDCS could augment singular effects of AE and tDCS on global cognition (GC), working memory (WM) and executive function (EF) in older individuals with or without MCI and dementia. METHODS: Using a PRISMA-based systematic review, we compiled studies that examined the effects of AE alone, tDCS alone, and AE and tDCS combined on cognitive function in older individuals with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Using a PICOS approach, we systematically searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science searches up to December 2021, we focused on 'MoCA', 'MMSE', 'Mini-Cog' (measures) and 'cognition', 'cognitive function', 'cognitive', 'cognitive performance', 'executive function', 'executive process', 'attention', 'memory', 'memory performance' (outcome terms). We included only randomized controlled trials (RTC) in humans if available in English full text over the past 20 years, with participants' age over 60. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies (RTC) by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. RESULTS: Overall, 68 studies were included in the meta-analyses. AE (ES = 0.56 [95% CI: 0.28-0.83], p = 0.01) and tDCS (ES = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.12-1.26], p = 0.02) improved GC in all three groups of older adults combined (healthy, MCI, demented). In healthy population, AE improved GC (ES = 0.46 [95% CI: 0.22-0.69], p = 0.01) and EF (ES = 0.27 [95% CI: 0.05-0.49], p = 0.02). AE improved GC in older adults with MCI (ES = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.21-1.32], p = 0.01). tDCS improved GC (ES = 0.69 [90% CI: 0.12-1.26], p = 0.02), all three cognitive function (GC, WM and EF) combined in older adults with dementia (ES = 1.12 [95% CI: 0.04-2.19], p = 0.04) and improved cognitive function in older adults overall (ES = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.20-1,18], p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review with meta-analysis provided evidence that beyond the cardiovascular and fitness benefits of AE, pairing AE with tDCS may have the potential to slow symptom progression of cognitive decline in MCI and dementia. Future studies will examine the hypothesis of this present review that a potentiating effect would incrementally improve cognition with increasing severity of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".