↓ Skip to main content

Low to No Effect: Application of tRNS During Two-Digit Addition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Low to No Effect: Application of tRNS During Two-Digit Addition
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00176
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silke M. Bieck, Christina Artemenko, Korbinian Moeller, Elise Klein

Abstract

Transcranial electric stimulation such as transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been used to investigate structure-function relationships in numerical cognition. Recently, tRNS was suggested to be more effective than tDCS. However, so far there is no evidence on the differential impact of tDCS and tRNS on numerical cognition using the same experimental paradigm. In the present study, we used a two-digit addition paradigm for which significant-albeit small-effects of tDCS were observed previously to evaluate the impact of parietal and frontal tRNS on specific numerical effects. While previous studies reported a modulation of numerical effects of this task through tDCS applied to parietal areas, we did not observe any effect of parietal tRNS on performance in two-digit addition. These findings suggest that tRNS seemed to influence concurrent mental arithmetic less than tDCS at least when applied over the IPS. These generally small to absent effects of tES on actual arithmetic performance in the current addition paradigm are in line with the results of a recent meta-analysis indicating that influences of tES may be more pronounced in training paradigms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 40%
Neuroscience 7 16%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,672
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,241
of 343,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#209
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 343,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.