Concurrent cognitive control training augments the antidepressant efficacy of tDCS: A pilot study
Open accessAbstract
Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) is frequently associated with underactivity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) which has led to this brain region being identified as an important target for the development of neurobiological treatments. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) administered to the DLPFC has antidepressant efficacy, however the magnitude of antidepressant outcomes are limited. Concurrent cognitive activity has been shown to enhance tDCS induced stimulation effects. Cognitive control training (CCT) is a new cognitive therapy for MDD that aims to enhance DLPFC activity via behavioral methods. Hypothesis We tested the hypothesis that co-administration of DLPFC tDCS and CCT would result in a greater reduction in depressive symptomology than administration of tDCS or CCT alone. Methods 27 adult participants with MDD were randomized into a three-arm sham-controlled between-groups pilot study comparing the efficacy of 2 mA tDCS + CCT, sham tDCS + CCT and sham CCT + 2 mA tDCS (5 sessions administered on consecutive working days). Blinded assessments of depression severity and cognitive control were conducted at baseline, end of treatment and a three week follow up review. Results All three treatment conditions were associated with a reduction in depression severity at the end of five treatment sessions. However, only administration of tDCS + CCT resulted in sustained antidepressant response at follow up, the magnitude of which was greater th…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Segrave et al. (2014) reported strong improvements after sham compared to tDCS on N-back reaction time (Z-score < −1.96).
“Segrave et al. (2014) reported remarkable strong improvements after sham compared to tDCS (N-back RT, Z-score <−1.96).”
From Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Segrave et al. (2014)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 61 · Cited by 244
- Authors
- Segrave, R. A., Arnold, S., Hoy, K., & Fitzgerald, P. B.
- Affiliations
- Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research centre (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Segrave, R.A.
- Venue
- Brain Stimulation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 325-331
- ISSN
- 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-861X
- OpenAlex
- W1971146523
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 7
- FWCI
- 8.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doaj.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Brain stimulation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, transcranial direct current stimulation, cognitive control training, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, antidepressant efficacy, depression severity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cognition, Combined Modality Therapy, Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review