Cited by 118Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

Direct-current stimulation does little to improve the outcome of working-memory training in older adults

Open access
Nilsson, Jonna, Lebedev, Alexander V., Rydström, Anders, Lövdén, Martin·2017·Psychological Science

Abstract

The promise of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) as a modulator of cognition has appealed to researchers, media, and the general public. Researchers have suggested that tDCS may increase effects of cognitive training. In this study of 123 older adults, we examined the interactive effects of 20 sessions of anodal tDCS over the left prefrontal cortex (vs. sham tDCS) and simultaneous working memory training (vs. control training) on change in cognitive abilities. Stimulation did not modulate gains from pre- to posttest on latent factors of either trained or untrained tasks in a statistically significant manner. A supporting meta-analysis ( n = 266), including younger as well as older individuals, showed that, when combined with training, tDCS was not much more effective than sham tDCS at changing working memory performance ( g = 0.07, 95% confidence interval, or CI = [−0.21, 0.34]) and global cognition performance ( g = −0.01, 95% CI = [−0.29, 0.26]) assessed in the absence of stimulation. These results question the general usefulness of current tDCS protocols for enhancing the effects of cognitive training on cognitive ability.

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 · 10.1177/0956797617698139

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nilsson, J., Lebedev, A. V., Rydström, A., & Lövdén, M.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Lövdén, Martin
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2017-05-16
Volume
28
Issue
7
Pages
907-920
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2616004589
Cited by
118
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet (446-2013-7189)
  • European Research Council (617280 - REBOOT)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, working memory training, older adults, anodal tDCS, left prefrontal cortex, cognitive training, cognitive enhancement, global cognition, sham stimulation
MeSH terms
Aged, Cognition, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Transfer, Psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, 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