Neurochemical Predictors of Generalized Learning Induced by Brain Stimulation and Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods of cognitive enhancement for humans are most impactful when they generalize across tasks. However, the extent to which such "transfer" is possible via interventions is widely debated. In addition, the contribution of excitatory and inhibitory processes to such transfer is unknown. Here, in a large-scale neuroimaging individual differences study with humans (both sexes), we paired multitasking training and noninvasive brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) over multiple days and assessed performance across a range of paradigms. In addition, we varied tDCS dosage (1.0 and 2.0 mA), electrode montage (left or right prefrontal regions), and training task (multitasking vs a control task) and assessed GABA and glutamate concentrations via ultrahigh field 7T magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Generalized benefits were observed in spatial attention, indexed by visual search performance, when multitasking training was combined with 1.0 mA stimulation targeting either the left or right prefrontal cortex (PFC). This transfer effect persisted for ∼30 d post intervention. Critically, the transferred benefits associated with right prefrontal tDCS were predicted by pretraining concentrations of glutamate in the PFC. Thus, the effects of this combined stimulation and training protocol appear to be linked predominantly to excitatory brain processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".