Cited by 227Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

tDCS-induced alterations in GABA concentration within primary motor cortex predict motor learning and motor memory: a 7 T magnetic resonance spectroscopy study

Open access
Kim, Soyoung, Stephenson, Mary C., Morris, Peter G., Jackson, Stephen R.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that alters cortical excitability in a polarity specific manner and has been shown to influence learning and memory. tDCS may have both on-line and after-effects on learning and memory, and the latter are thought to be based upon tDCS-induced alterations in neurochemistry and synaptic function. We used ultra-high-field (7 T) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), together with a robotic force adaptation and de-adaptation task, to investigate whether tDCS-induced alterations in GABA and Glutamate within motor cortex predict motor learning and memory. Note that adaptation to a robot-induced force field has long been considered to be a form of model-based learning that is closely associated with the computation and 'supervised' learning of internal 'forward' models within the cerebellum. Importantly, previous studies have shown that on-line tDCS to the cerebellum, but not to motor cortex, enhances model-based motor learning. Here we demonstrate that anodal tDCS delivered to the hand area of the left primary motor cortex induces a significant reduction in GABA concentration. This effect was specific to GABA, localised to the left motor cortex, and was polarity specific insofar as it was not observed following either cathodal or sham stimulation. Importantly, we show that the magnitude of tDCS-induced alterations in GABA concentration within motor cortex predicts individual differences in both motor learning and motor memory on the robotic force adaptation and de-adaptation task.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.070

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • tDCS is thought to affect neuroplasticity via modulating cellular, molecular and neurochemical mechanisms involved in use-dependent local and distant synaptic plasticity, i.e., GABA and glutamate-mediated long-term potentiation.

    “tDCS is thought to affect neuroplasticity via modulating cellular, molecular and neurochemical mechanisms involved in use-dependent local and distant synaptic plasticity, i.e., GABA and glutamate-mediated long-term potentiation (Nitsche et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2014)”

    From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2014

    The Introduction (page unavailable) links tDCS-induced excitability changes to synaptic activity, NMDA and GABAA receptors, and GABA-related LTP-like plasticity in motor cortex. The Discussion (page unavailable) says post-stimulation effects appear to involve synaptic plasticity and changes in glutamate and GABA signalling. The paper does not establish distant synaptic plasticity or specifically describe tDCS's effects as GABA- and glutamate-mediated long-term potentiation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • tDCS is thought to affect neuroplasticity.

    “Given that tDCS is thought to affect neuroplasticity (Nitsche et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2014),”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 227

Authors
Kim, S., Stephenson, M. C., Morris, P. G., & Jackson, S. R.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Jackson, Stephen R.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
99
Pages
237-243
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976072801
Cited by
227
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council (G0901321)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, GABA, glutamate, primary motor cortex, motor learning, motor memory, force field adaptation, model-based learning, anodal stimulation, individual differences, neurochemistry
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Female, gamma-Aminobutyric Acid, Glutamine, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Motor Cortex, Motor Skills, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Visual Cortex, Glutamic Acid, 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