Neural substrates of individual differences in learning generalization via combined brain stimulation and multitasking training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pervasive limitation in cognition is reflected by the performance costs we experience when attempting to undertake two tasks simultaneously. While training can overcome these multitasking costs, the more elusive objective of training interventions is to induce persistent gains that transfer across tasks. Combined brain stimulation and cognitive training protocols have been employed to improve a range of psychological processes and facilitate such transfer, with consistent gains demonstrated in multitasking and decision-making. Neural activity in frontal, parietal, and subcortical regions has been implicated in multitasking training gains, but how the brain supports training transfer is poorly understood. To investigate this, we combined transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex and multitasking training, with functional magnetic resonance imaging in 178 participants. We observed transfer to a visual search task, following 1 mA left or right prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation and multitasking training. These gains persisted for 1-month post-training. Notably, improvements in visual search performance for the right hemisphere stimulation group were associated with activity changes in the right hemisphere dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, intraparietal sulcus, and cerebellum. Thus, functional dynamics in these task-general regions determine how individuals respond to paired stimulation and training, resulting in enhanced performance on an untrained task.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".