MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322772961 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2023.1119200

Can visual cortex non-invasive brain stimulation improve normal visual function? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4322772961 on OpenAlexaff
Umar Muhammad Bello, Jingying Wang, Adela S. Y. Park, Ken W. S. Tan, Blossom W. S. Cheung, Benjamin Thompson, Allen M. Y. Cheong

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHong Kong GovernmentImpact Fund
KeywordsMeta-analysisTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineVisual cortexWeb of scienceTranscranial direct-current stimulationBrain stimulationMEDLINEAudiologyStimulationPsychologyNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Multiple studies have explored the use of visual cortex non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to enhance visual function. These studies vary in sample size, outcome measures, and methodology. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the effects of NIBS on visual functions in human participants with normal vision. Methods We followed the PRISMA guidelines, and a review protocol was registered with PROSPERO before study commencement (CRD42021255882). We searched Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, PubMed, OpenGrey and Web of Science using relevant keywords. The search covered the period from 1st January 2000 until 1st September 2021. Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software was used for quantitative analysis. Results Fifty studies were included in the systematic review. Only five studies utilized transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and no TMS studies met our pre-specified criteria for meta-analysis. Nineteen transcranial electrical stimulation studies (tES, 38%) met the criteria for meta-analysis and were the focus of our review. Meta-analysis indicated acute effects (Hedges’s g = 0.232, 95% CI: 0.023–0.442, p = 0.029) and aftereffects (0.590, 95% CI: 0.182–0.998, p = 0.005) of tES on contrast sensitivity. Visual evoked potential (VEP) amplitudes were significantly enhanced immediately after tES (0.383, 95% CI: 0.110–0.665, p = 0.006). Both tES (0.563, 95% CI: 0.230–0.896, p = 0.001) and anodal-transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) alone (0.655, 95% CI: 0.273–1.038, p = 0.001) reduced crowding in peripheral vision. The effects of tES on visual acuity, motion perception and reaction time were not statistically significant. Conclusion There are significant effects of visual cortex tES on contrast sensitivity, VEP amplitude, an index of cortical excitability, and crowding among normally sighted individuals. Additional studies are required to enable a comparable meta-analysis of TMS effects. Future studies with robust experimental designs are needed to extend these findings to populations with vision loss. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov/ , identifier CRD42021255882.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207