MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410172436 · doi:10.1007/s41465-025-00325-5

HD-tDCS in a Gaming Setting: Effects of Polarity and Timing in a Visuospatial Working-Memory Task

2025· article· en· W4410172436 on OpenAlexaff
Gina L. Haccou, Nick Nau, Colby Johanson, J.W.J.R. van 't Klooster, Maximilian A. Friehs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Enhancement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyPolarity (international relations)AudiologyNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Visuospatial working memory is essential to everyday functioning, for example, when navigating the natural world and for complex everyday tasks like driving. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is associated with visuospatial working memory and the present study is aimed at investigating the impact of activity modulation in the DLPFC on performance in a gaming setting with high visuospatial working memory demands. In order to influence the activation in the DLPFC, we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Understanding working memory and the connected brain regions is relevant for improved cognitive functioning through cognitive enhancement in a wide variety of applications. N = 26 participants participated in a sham-controlled high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) study fully crossing polarity (anodal vs. cathodal) and stimulation timing (offline vs. online) within-subjects. In each session, a participant’s visuospatial working memory performance in a gaming setting was measured twice using a research game akin to the Super Hexagon game (Cavanagh, 2012). No significant polarity or timing effects were found for either of the variables tested. These results contribute to the understanding under which conditions cognitive enhancement may be viable in practice (e.g., to enhance learning, e-sports performance, or driving).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive EnhancementSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207