The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
No Evidence That Baseline Prefrontal Cortical Excitability (3T-MRS) Predicts the Effects of Prefrontal tDCS on WM Performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2018.00481 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lotte J. Talsma, Julia A. Broekhuizen, Job Huisman, Heleen A. Slagter |
| Abstract |
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) is a promising tool to enhance working memory (WM) in clinical as well as healthy populations. Yet, tDCS does not affect everyone similarly: whereas tDCS improves WM in most individuals, some individuals do not, or actually show detriments in WM performance after stimulation. One hypothesis that has been put forward to account for individual differences in tDCS response is that baseline cortical excitability levels in the stimulated cortex may determine the strength and the direction of the effects of tDCS. Specifically, by locally affecting neuronal excitability, tDCS may interact with baseline cortical excitability levels, thereby pushing or pulling individuals toward or away from an optimal level of cortical functioning. In the current study, we put this hypothesis to the test with regard to prefrontal cortex stimulation and WM. In 20 healthy male participants, using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) at 3T, we measured concentrations of Glutamate and GABA in the lDLPFC and calculated individual Glutamate/GABA ratios as a measure for cortical excitability. Subsequently, in two stimulation sessions, we once applied anodal and once cathodal tDCS over the lDLPFC (20 min, 1 mA). Stimulation was always applied in the second block of three blocks of a WM updating task. Surprisingly, at the group-level, we found no effects of anodal or cathodal stimulation on WM performance. Yet, in line with previous studies, large individual variability was observed in the strength and direction of tDCS effects; whereas about half of the participants improved, the other half showed lower accuracy after stimulation. This was true for both anodal and cathodal tDCS. Nevertheless, contrary to our expectations, individual baseline prefrontal cortical excitability did not predict these individual differences in the effect of anodal or cathodal stimulation on WM accuracy. Future studies with larger sample sizes, which use higher magnetic field strengths (e.g., 7T) to measure cortical excitability and/or apply individualized stimulation protocols, are necessary to shed more light on the influence of baseline cortical excitability on effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS over lDLPFC on WM performance. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,875
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,636
of 323,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#132
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 323,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.