Neuroenhancement through cognitive training and anodal tDCS in multiple sclerosis
Abstract
Background: Cognitive training has been shown to improve cognitive function and quality of life in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and is correlated with increased activity in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Objective: This study aims to test whether combining attention training with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over the left DLPFC can improve training efficacy. Methods: Twenty patients impaired in attention/speed of information processing were randomly assigned to cognitive training during a-tDCS over the left DLPFC or cognitive training during sham tDCS for 10 daily sessions. Neuropsychological evaluations were conducted at baseline, after treatment and six months later. Results: When a-tDCS, rather than sham, was applied during the cognitive training, patients showed a significantly greater improvement in the Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT) and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) after treatment ( p < 0.05) and in the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) 2” and WCST six months later ( p < 0.05). They also had significantly shorter time to reach the most difficult exercise level, compared to sham treatment (6.3 vs. 7.4 sessions; p < 0.05). Conclusions: These results indicate that a-tDCS on the DLPFC during cognitive training fosters improvements in attention and executive function in MS patients and shortens treatment duration.
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?
Mattioli et al. (2016) and the DLPFC-condition of Chalah et al. (2017) were identified as outliers in the tDCS executive functioning analysis.
“Mattioli, Bellomi, Stampatori, Capra, and Miniussi (2016) and the DLPFC-condition of Chalah, Créange, Lefaucheur, and Ayache (2017) were both identified as outliers.”
From Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Mattioli, Bellomi, Stampatori, Capra, and Miniussi (2016)
Mattioli et al. (2016) was a positive outlier and the only study using total errors of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test as an outcome measure.
“Mattioli et al. (2016) was a positive outlier (Z-score >1.96) and the only study using total errors of the Wisconsin's Card Sorting Test as an outcome measure.”
From Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Mattioli et al. (2016)
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971 · see citing works
Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2000) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x · Cited by 5,656 · see citing works
Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016 · Cited by 5,367 · see citing works
Paced Auditory Serial-Addition Task: A Measure of Recovery from Concussion
Gronwall, D. M. A. (1977) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.1977.44.2.367 · Cited by 2,395 · see citing works
Bolognini, N., Vallar, G., Casati, C., Latif, L. A., El-Nazer, R., Williams, J., Banco, E., Macea, D. D., Tesio, L., Chessa, C., et al. (2011) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968311411056 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Modifying motor learning through gating and homeostatic metaplasticity
Ziemann, U., & Siebner, H. R. (2008) · Brain Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2007.08.003 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Cognitive reserve in multiple sclerosis
Sumowski, J. F., & Leavitt, V. M. (2013) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/1352458513498834 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Begemann, M. J., Brand, B. A., Ćurčić-Blake, B., Aleman, A., & Sommer, I. E. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720003670 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mattioli, F., Bellomi, F., Stampatori, C., Capra, R., & Miniussi, C.
- Affiliations
- Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia (IT)
- Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Mattioli, Flavia
- Venue
- Multiple Sclerosis Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-05-26
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 222-230
- ISSN
- 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0970
- OpenAlex
- W437354064
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8
- FWCI
- 3.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- multiple sclerosis, cognitive training, anodal tDCS, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, attention, executive function, cognitive enhancement, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, treatment duration
- MeSH terms
- Neurological Rehabilitation, Adult, Attention, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting, Executive Function, 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