CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Augmentation of working memory training by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

Open access
Ruf, Steffen Philipp, Fallgatter, Andreas J., Plewnia, Christian·2017·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-01055-1PMC PMC5430723
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) can modulate working memory (WM) performance. However, evidence regarding the enhancement of WM training, its sustainability and transferability is ambiguous. Since WM functioning appears to be lateralized in respect to stimulus characteristics, this study examined the difference between task-congruent (spatial-right, verbal-left), task-incongruent (spatial-left, verbal-right) and sham tDCS in regards to the efficacy of WM training. In a randomized, sham-controlled experiment, 71 healthy adults trained on a spatial or verbal adaptive n-back task. After a baseline session, anodal or sham tDCS (1 mA) to the right or left dlPFC was applied during the next three training sessions. Sustainability of training gains and near-transfer (verbal or spatial 3-back task) were tested in a fourth training and a follow-up session. Compared to sham stimulation, we found a steeper learning curve when WM training was combined with task-congruent tDCS. This advantage was also present compared to task-incongruent tDCS. Moreover, these effects lasted for up to nine months and transferred to the respective untrained task. These long-lasting, transferable, task-specific effects demonstrate a behaviorally relevant and sustainable facilitation of neuroplastic processes by tDCS that could be harnessed for the treatment of disorders associated with deficient WM.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41598-017-01055-1

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Adaptive n-back training (mean n) across sessions with T1 – T3 combined with anodal tDCS during one week. At T4, the adaptive n-back was trained without tDCS. Follow-up sessions were performed without tDCS. Shading indicates application of tDCS. Error-bars represent the standard error (SEM). *Indicates significant t-tests (p < 0.05).
Figure 1 Adaptive n-back training (mean n) across sessions with T1 – T3 combined with anodal tDCS during one week. At T4, the adaptive n-back was trained without tDCS. Follow-up sessions were performed without tDCS. Shading indicates application of tDCS. Error-bars represent the standard error (SEM). *Indicates significant t-tests (p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Training gains (performance at T4 minus baseline performance) in dependency of baseline performance. Dashed lines are linear regression lines for each group.
Figure 2 Training gains (performance at T4 minus baseline performance) in dependency of baseline performance. Dashed lines are linear regression lines for each group.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 At baseline, T4, and T5, performance (d′) on the 3-back near-transfer task was measured without concurrent tDCS to test the transfer of tDCS-enhanced adaptive n-back training gains. Error-bars represent the standard error (SEM). *Indicates significant t-tests (p < 0.05).
Figure 3 At baseline, T4, and T5, performance (d′) on the 3-back near-transfer task was measured without concurrent tDCS to test the transfer of tDCS-enhanced adaptive n-back training gains. Error-bars represent the standard error (SEM). *Indicates significant t-tests (p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Procedure, task assessment, and timeline of the two training schedules.
Figure 4 Procedure, task assessment, and timeline of the two training schedules.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Schematic depiction of the training and transfer tasks (Figure adapted from Jaeggi et al., 2008).
Figure 5 Schematic depiction of the training and transfer tasks (Figure adapted from Jaeggi et al., 2008).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 90 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hoskinson, P. & Toomim, J. Brain Workshop (Version 4.8.4). (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–167 of 167

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ruf, S. P., Fallgatter, A. J., & Plewnia, C.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Plewnia, Christian
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-04-21
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
876-876
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-01055-1
PMC
PMC5430723
OpenAlex
W2604508934
Cited by
167
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (GCBS/FKZ01EE1403D, ESPRIT/FKZ 01EE1407H, FKZ 01EE1407H, 01EE1407H, FKZ 01EE1403D, 01EE1403D)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, working memory training, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, n-back task, transfer of training, neuroplasticity, learning curve, sham stimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Prefrontal Cortex, 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