The use of combined cognitive training and non-invasive brain stimulation to modulate impulsivity in adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Impulsivity, a tendency to act rashly and without forethought, is a core feature of many mental disorders that has been implicated in suicidality and offending behaviours. While research supports the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), to modulate brain functions, no studies specifically reviewed the use of combined cognitive training and NIBS to modulate impulsivity. Methods: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the literature on the use of combined cognitive training and NIBS to modulate impulsivity and its subdomains (motor, delay discounting, reflection). We searched Scopus, PsychInfo, Medline, and Cinahl electronic databases, dissertations database, and Google scholar up to September 2024. Results: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, four randomised controlled studies involving the use of combined cognitive training and tDCS in 127 subjects were included in the study. These studies included subjects with substance use disorders, obesity, and Parkinson's disease. Meta-analysis showed that combined cognitive training and tDCS had no statistically significant effects on motor impulsivity as measured using reaction times on the Stop Signal Task and Go/No Go tasks. One study that measured impulsiveness scores on a delay discounting task also showed no significant results. No studies measured reflection or cognitive impulsivity. Discussion: There is a dearth of literature on the use of combined cognitive training and NIBS for impulsivity. This in conjunction of clinical heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the neuromodulation of impulsivity and its subdomains using combined cognitive training and NIBS. The findings of this study highlight the need to conduct more studies in the field. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD 42024511576.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".