Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on puzzle-solving ability in stroke patients with cognitive dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stroke lies among the most disabling diseases and is world-wide a leading cause of death. Most of the stroke patients experience cognitive deficits associated with executive dysfunction (decision making, problem solving, working memory, and cognitive flexibility). Executive dysfunction in stroke makes the patients vulnerable to depression, anxiety as their daily activities like personal, social, cultural and occupational are severely affected. Thus, the dependency increases and their quality of life decreases. Problem solving is one such important executive function required in day-to-day life. Puzzle solving reflects onto ones problem-solving ability that requires understanding, conceptual knowledge recruitment, novel and insightful thinking, and processing a solution. The purpose of this study was to determine if noninvasive brain stimulation has any effect on puzzle-solving ability of stroke patients and to assess their performance on the same. METHOD: A 3-week interventional study on 11 stroke participants was done. The samples were assessed at baseline for cognitive impairment using Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale. Participants with scores <26 were given a 30-piece Jigsaw Puzzle to solve and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) was done, both at baseline and after 3 weeks. RESULTS: This study confirmed that there was improvement in the performance of solving the Jigsaw Puzzle after application of transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) (P = 0.005), but the scores on WCST showed no significant reliable change (P = 0.192). CONCLUSION: This study concluded that TDCS is effective in improving puzzle-solving ability in stroke patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".