The Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Motor Sequence Practice in Typically Fluent Adults and Adults Who Stutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Developmental stuttering involves dysregulation in the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical circuit, impacting speech and non-speech motor control. While Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) enhances speech motor learning in stuttering, its effects on non-speech motor skills are not studied. This project aimed to assess anodal tDCS effects on a finger sequencing task.Methods: Thirty right-handed adults who stutter and twenty controls received anodal tDCS at 2mA or sham stimulation at 0mA on the right primary motor region (M1) for 20 minutes. Sequence duration and reaction time were measured. Results: All cohorts performed similarly except for the stutter group under anodal tDCS, which displayed longer sequence durations and reduced improvement in reaction times. Discussion: The findings suggest that anodal tDCS on the right M1 negatively affects motor sequence practice in stuttering, possibly due to differences in neural activity in the M1. Further research on interventions targeting cortical excitability is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".