Moderating effects of gender, age and cognitive reserve on combined cognitive training and transcranial electrical stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive training (CT) has been shown to improve cognition in elderly adults via targeted exercises for single or multiple cognitive domains. Combining CT with brain stimulation is thought to be more effective due to synergistic effects in the targeted brain areas and networks. However, little is known about the moderating effects of gender, age, and cognitive reserve on cognitive outcomes. In this randomized, sham-controlled study, 59 healthy elderly participants (mean age 71.7) were assigned to receive computer-based CT (10 sessions, 50 min, twice weekly). During first 20 minutes of each CT session participants received either tDCS (2 mA), tACS (1 mA, 5 Hz, 0° initial phase shift), or sham stimulation. The anode was placed over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (35 cm2), the cathode (100 cm2) was placed over the supraorbital area. Participants trained processing speed, selective and divided attention, and executive functions (working memory, inhibitory control). Cognitive performance was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and a cognitive composite score derived from a broad neuropsychological test battery that was administered before and immediately after the intervention as well as at a 6- and 12-month follow-up. Cognitive reserve was assessed with the Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire (CRIq). We will report on cognitive outcomes of each intervention against sham stimulation in finding differences between the different study groups. Further outcomes will provide information on the moderating effects of gender, age, and cognitive reserve. Finally, we will discuss possible implications of said moderating factors for the planning of combined cognitive training and brain stimulation studies. Research Category and Technology and Methods Translational Research: 5. Other Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) Keywords: Transcranial direct current stimulation, Transcranial random noise stimulation, Cognitive training, Aging
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".