The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive Enhancement or Cognitive Cost: Trait-Specific Outcomes of Brain Stimulation in the Case of Mathematics Anxiety
Open accessAbstract
The surge in noninvasive brain stimulation studies investigating cognitive enhancement has neglected the effect of interindividual differences, such as traits, on stimulation outcomes. Using the case of mathematics anxiety in a sample of healthy human participants in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover experiment, we show that identical transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) exerts opposite behavioral and physiological effects depending on individual trait levels. Mathematics anxiety is the negative emotional response elicited by numerical tasks, impairing mathematical achievement. tDCS was applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a frequent target for modulating emotional regulation. It improved reaction times on simple arithmetic decisions and decreased cortisol concentrations (a biomarker of stress) in high mathematics anxiety individuals. In contrast, tDCS impaired reaction times for low mathematics anxiety individuals and prevented a decrease in cortisol concentration compared with sham stimulation. Both groups showed a tDCS-induced side effect-impaired executive control in a flanker task-a cognitive function subserved by the stimulated region. These behavioral and physiological double dissociations have implications for brain stimulation research by highlighting the role of individual traits in experimental findings. Brain stimulation clearly does not produce uniform benefits, even applied in the same configuration during the same tasks, but may interact with traits to produce markedly opposed outcomes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Inter-individual differences in traits, which may be associated with differences in baseline neural states, have in fact shown to affect the benefits or costs of brain stimulation.”
From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Sarkar et al., 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, subjects with high mathematical anxiety benefited in their reaction time to mathematical tasks with tDCS over DLPFC, while those with low mathematical anxiety had an impairment in reaction times. Also, both groups became worse in an interference inhibition task (Sarkar et al., 2014),”
From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Sarkar 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.
Citations
Cites
Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892902317361886 · Cited by 3,717
Contributions of the Amygdala to Emotion Processing: From Animal Models to Human Behavior
Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.09.025 · Cited by 3,203 · cited 1×
“For instance, Young et al. (2012) found amygdala hyperactivity, implicated in processing fear (Phelps and LeDoux, 2005), in high mathematics anxiety children exposed to mathematical stimuli.”
BackgroundThe Nature, Effects, and Relief of Mathematics Anxiety
Hembree, R. (1990) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.2307/749455 · Cited by 2,249
Salivary cortisol as a biomarker in stress research
Hellhammer, D. H., Wüst, S., & Kudielka, B. M. (2009) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.026 · Cited by 1,925
The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale: Psychometric data.
Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0033456 · Cited by 1,524
Gandiga, P. C., Hummel, F. C., & Cohen, L. G. (2006) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003 · Cited by 1,474
Math anxiety: personal, educational, and cognitive consequences
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00196 · Cited by 1,471
The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224 · Cited by 1,445
Fritsch, B., Reis, J., Martinowich, K., Schambra, H. M., Ji, Y., Cohen, L. G., & Lu, B. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.035 · Cited by 1,420
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Smith, D. R. (2001) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012058570-0/50008-2 · Cited by 1,417
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mathematics anxiety: what have we learned in 60 years?
Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508 · Cited by 811
Math Anxiety: Past Research, Promising Interventions, and a New Interpretation Framework
Ramirez, G., Shaw, S. T., & Maloney, E. A. (2018) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1447384 · Cited by 776
Li, L. M., Uehara, K., & Hanakawa, T. (2015) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2015.00181 · Cited by 477
Rubia, K. (2018) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00100 · Cited by 384
“Also, both groups became worse in an interference inhibition task (Sarkar et al., 2014), which could possibly reflect a negative effect of tDCS of DLPFC on the neighboring IFC region which mediates interference inhibition.”
BackgroundPellicioni, M. S., Núñez‐Peña, M. I., & Colomé, À. (2015) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-015-0370-7 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Sarkar, A., Dowker, A., & Cohen Kadosh, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2014-12-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 50
- Pages
- 16605-16610
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC4261089
- OpenAlex
- W2085626196
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 10.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (WT 88378)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- mathematics anxiety, transcranial direct current stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, individual differences, cortisol, stress response, executive function, flanker task, arithmetic performance, emotion regulation, placebo effect
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety, Cognition, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Reaction Time, Cross-Over Studies, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult
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
