ArticleNPJ science of learning2024
Native learning ability and not age determines the effects of brain stimulation.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifocal Noninvasive Deep Brain Stimulation to Enhance Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Crossover Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Non-invasive brain stimulation: current and future applications in neurology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthy aging often entails a decline in cognitive and motor functions, affecting independence and quality of life in older adults. Brain stimulation shows potential to enhance these functions, but studies show variable effects. Previous studies have tried to identify responders and non-responders through correlations between behavioral change and baseline parameters, but results lack generalization to independent cohorts. We propose a method to predict an individual's likelihood of benefiting from stimulation, based on baseline performance of a sequential motor task. Our results show that individuals with less efficient learning mechanisms benefit from stimulation, while those with optimal learning strategies experience none or even detrimental effects. This differential effect, first identified in a public dataset and replicated here in an independent cohort, was linked to one's ability to integrate task-relevant information and not age. This study constitutes a further step towards personalized clinical-translational interventions based on brain stimulation.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.