Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Executive Ability Among Individuals with Right Cerebral Hemisphere Dominance: A Double- Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The frontal lobe of the cerebrum controls executive functions such as cognitive abilities, including working memory, attention and focus, planning, processing, task sequencing, and problem-solving. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is found to be an effective tool in improving calculative abilities. Therefore, the study aimed to determine the effect of tDCS on improving executive ability, focusing on calculation among individuals with dominant right cerebral hemispheres. Methods: A two-group pre and post-test randomized controlled trial recruited forty volunteers, which were assigned into two groups, i.e., the experimental (tDCS with conventional treatment) and the control group (sham therapy with conventional treatment) three times a week for four weeks. Pre- and post-assessment were obtained using the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination (SLUMS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as outcome measures. Results: The mean differences between these groups' post-SLUM and pre-SLUM scores were 5.70 and 0.50, respectively. Meanwhile, the mean differences between post- and pre-MOCA scores in these groups were 5.20 and 1.85, respectively, which showed a significant difference. The z value of the experimental {-4.694 (0.001)} and the control group {-3.963 (0.001)} showed that the data was highly significant in both groups. The effect sizes and power of the study for SLUMS and MoCA are 1.34 and 2.60, and 98% and 100 %, respectively. Conclusion: This study concluded that tDCS, along with exercise protocol, is an adjuvant tool to improve the calculation ability of individuals with dominant right hemispheres.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".