Clinical Effects of Accelerated tDCS on Cognition in Major Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive deficits associated with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) pose profound challenges for affected individuals, significantly impairing quality of life.Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is emerging as a promising therapeutic modality for MDD.This study evaluated the clinical effects of an accelerated tDCS protocol on cognitive task performance among MDD participants, focusing on episodic memory, executive function, and language.Methods: Twenty-nine MDD participants underwent an accelerated 10day tDCS treatment (five sessions/day, 50 sessions total) at 2 mA intensity.Sessions were 20 minutes long and spaced by 20-minute intervals.Anode and cathode electrodes were placed over the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using "SNAPstrap" headsets (F3/F4, international 10-20 EEG system).Neuropsychological assessments were conducted at baseline and 1-week post-treatment.Results: Baseline mean cognitive scores included: RAVLT: 50.29 (7.4);ROCF: 20.4 (6.8);COWAT: 35.4 (10.0);TMT (B): 93.0 sec (60.1).A paired sample t-test revealed significant increases in scores for RAVLT (p < .001),ROCF (p < .001),and TMT (p 0.005).There was no significant improvement for COWAT total score post tDCS.Ten participants displayed a small decrease in verbal fluency at F1 (-6.2 words).Baseline Pearson correlations showed a moderate positive relationship between the age of onset of depression and baseline TMT scores (p .019),and moderate negative relationships between the age of onset and COWAT scores (p .021),age at treatment and RAVLT learning scores (p .028),and a strong negative relationship between age at treatment and baseline ROCF recall scores (p < .001).Conclusion: Accelerated tDCS enhanced some cognitive functions, such as visuospatial memory.Conversely, some participants experienced mild inhibition in phonemic fluency.Further studies are needed to explore the specific effects of accelerated tDCS protocols on cognition.
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".