Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37651315›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2023

Human neuronal excitation/inhibition balance explains and predicts neurostimulation induced learning benefits.

Nienke E R van Bueren, Sanne H G van der Ven, Shachar Hochman, Francesco Sella, Roi Cohen Kadosh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Dissociating Contributions of Theta and Alpha Oscillations from Aperiodic Neural Activity in Human Visual Working Memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nienke E R van BuerenWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0198-7252
Sanne H G van der VenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Shachar HochmanSchool of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Francesco SellaCentre for Mathematical Cognition, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Roi Cohen KadoshWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Surrey · GBLoughborough University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has highlighted the role of the excitation/inhibition (E/I) ratio for typical and atypical development, mental health, cognition, and learning. Other research has highlighted the benefits of high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS)-an excitatory form of neurostimulation-on learning. We examined the E/I as a potential mechanism and studied whether tRNS effect on learning depends on E/I as measured by the aperiodic exponent as its putative marker. In addition to manipulating E/I using tRNS, we also manipulated the level of learning (learning/overlearning) that has been shown to influence E/I. Participants (n = 102) received either sham stimulation or 20-minute tRNS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) during a mathematical learning task. We showed that tRNS increased E/I, as reflected by the aperiodic exponent, and that lower E/I predicted greater benefit from tRNS specifically for the learning task. In contrast to previous magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS)-based E/I studies, we found no effect of the level of learning on E/I. A further analysis using a different data set suggest that both measures of E/I (EEG versus MRS) may reflect, at least partly, different biological mechanisms. Our results highlight the role of E/I as a marker for neurostimulation efficacy and learning. This mechanistic understanding provides better opportunities for augmented learning and personalized interventions.

Indexed as

Nervous System Physiological PhenomenaTranscranial Direct Current StimulationCognitionHumansInhibition, PsychologicalLearning

Identifiers

PMID37651315
PMCPMC10470965
OpenAlexW4386307063

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.