↓ Skip to main content

Task-Specific Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Motor Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Task-Specific Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Motor Learning
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cinthia Maria Saucedo Marquez, Xue Zhang, Stephan Patrick Swinnen, Raf Meesen, Nicole Wenderoth

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a relatively new non-invasive brain stimulation technique that modulates neural processes. When applied to the human primary motor cortex (M1), tDCS has beneficial effects on motor skill learning and consolidation in healthy controls and in patients. However, it remains unclear whether tDCS improves motor learning in a general manner or whether these effects depend on which motor task is acquired. Here we compare whether the effect of tDCS differs when the same individual acquires (1) a Sequential Finger Tapping Task (SEQTAP) and (2) a Visual Isometric Pinch Force Task (FORCE). Both tasks have been shown to be sensitive to tDCS applied over M1, however, the underlying processes mediating learning and memory formation might benefit differently from anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (anodal-tDCS). Thirty healthy subjects were randomly assigned to an anodal-tDCS group or sham-group. Using a double-blind, sham-controlled cross-over design, tDCS was applied over M1 while subjects acquired each of the motor tasks over three consecutive days, with the order being randomized across subjects. We found that anodal-tDCS affected each task differently: the SEQTAP task benefited from anodal-tDCS during learning, whereas the FORCE task showed improvements only at retention. These findings suggest that anodal-tDCS applied over M1 appears to have a task-dependent effect on learning and memory formation.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 1%
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 284 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 20%
Student > Master 51 17%
Researcher 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 9%
Professor 13 4%
Other 51 17%
Unknown 52 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 55 19%
Psychology 48 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 5%
Sports and Recreations 16 5%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 71 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2014.
All research outputs
#13,154,315
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,841
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,768
of 280,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#529
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.