MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396988259 · doi:10.1113/jp286004

Neuromodulatory effects of parietal high‐definition transcranial direct‐current stimulation on network‐level activity serving fluid intelligence

2024· article· en· W4396988259 on OpenAlexaff
Tara D. Erker, Yasra Arif, Jason A John, Christine M. Embury, Kennedy A Kress, Seth D. Springer, Hannah J. Okelberry, Kellen M McDonald, Giorgia Picci, Alex I. Wiesman, Tony W. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationPosterior parietal cortexPsychologyStimulationNeuroscienceParietal lobeTranscranial magnetic stimulationBrain stimulationMagnetoencephalographyBrain activity and meditationCognitive psychologyElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluid intelligence (Gf) involves rational thinking skills and requires the integration of information from different cortical regions to resolve novel complex problems. The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on Gf have been studied in attempts to improve Gf, but such studies are rare and the few existing have reached conflicting conclusions. The parieto-frontal integration theory of intelligence (P-FIT) postulates that the parietal and frontal lobes play a critical role in Gf. To investigate the suggested role of parietal cortices, we applied high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) to the left and right parietal cortices of 39 healthy adults (age 19-33 years) for 20 min in three separate sessions (left active, right active and sham). After completing the stimulation session, the participants completed a logical reasoning task based on Raven's Progressive Matrices during magnetoencephalography. Significant neural responses at the sensor level across all stimulation conditions were imaged using a beamformer. Whole-brain, spectrally constrained functional connectivity was then computed to examine the network-level activity. Behaviourally, we found that participants were significantly more accurate following left compared to right parietal stimulation. Regarding neural findings, we found significant HD-tDCS montage-related effects in brain networks thought to be critical for P-FIT, including parieto-occipital, fronto-occipital, fronto-parietal and occipito-cerebellar connectivity during task performance. In conclusion, our findings showed that left parietal stimulation improved abstract reasoning abilities relative to right parietal stimulation and support both P-FIT and the neural efficiency hypothesis. KEY POINTS: Abstract reasoning is a critical component of fluid intelligence and is known to be served by multispectral oscillatory activity in the fronto-parietal cortices. Recent studies have aimed to improve abstract reasoning abilities and fluid intelligence overall through behavioural training, but the results have been mixed. High-definition transcranial direct-current stimulation (HD-tDCS) applied to the parietal cortices modulated task performance and neural oscillations during abstract reasoning. Left parietal stimulation resulted in increased accuracy and decreased functional connectivity between occipital regions and frontal, parietal, and cerebellar regions. Future studies should investigate whether HD-tDCS alters abstract reasoning abilities in those who exhibit declines in performance, such as healthy ageing populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physiology→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→