Cited by 93Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations

Individual differences and long-term consequences of tdcs-augmented cognitive training

Open access
Katz, Benjamin, Au, Jacky, Buschkuehl, Martin, Abagis, Tessa, Zabel, Chelsea, Jaeggi, Susanne M., Jonides, John·2017·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

A great deal of interest surrounds the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to augment cognitive training. However, effects are inconsistent across studies, and meta-analytic evidence is mixed, especially for healthy, young adults. One major source of this inconsistency is individual differences among the participants, but these differences are rarely examined in the context of combined training/stimulation studies. In addition, it is unclear how long the effects of stimulation last, even in successful interventions. Some studies make use of follow-up assessments, but very few have measured performance more than a few months after an intervention. Here, we utilized data from a previous study of tDCS and cognitive training [Au, J., Katz, B., Buschkuehl, M., Bunarjo, K., Senger, T., Zabel, C., et al. Enhancing working memory training with transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 1419–1432, 2016] in which participants trained on a working memory task over 7 days while receiving active or sham tDCS. A new, longer-term follow-up to assess later performance was conducted, and additional participants were added so that the sham condition was better powered. We assessed baseline cognitive ability, gender, training site, and motivation level and found significant interactions between both baseline ability and motivation with condition (active or sham) in models predicting training gain. In addition, the improvements in the active condition versus sham condition appear to be stable even as long as a year after the original intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_01115

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katz, B., Au, J., Buschkuehl, M., Abagis, T., Zabel, C., Jaeggi, S. M., & Jonides, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • MIND Research Institute (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2017-09-01
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
1498-1508
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2592166659
Cited by
93
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, cognitive training, working memory training, individual differences, motivation, long-term effects, sham stimulation, training facilities, gender differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Individuality, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Regression Analysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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