It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Interventions to improve working memory, e.g. by combining task rehearsal and non-invasive brain stimulation, are gaining popularity. Many factors, however, affect the outcome of these interventions. We hypothesize that working memory capacity at baseline predicts how an individual performs on a working memory task, by setting limits on the benefit derived from tDCS when combined with strategy instructions; specifically, we hypothesize that individuals with low capacity will benefit the most. Eighty-four participants underwent two sessions of an adaptive working memory task (n-back) on two consecutive days. Participants were split into four independent groups (SHAM vs ACTIVE stimulation and STRATEGY vs no STRATEGY instructions). For the purpose of analysis, individuals were divided based on their baseline working memory capacity. Results support our prediction that the combination of tDCS and strategy instructions is particularly beneficial in low capacity individuals. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of factors affecting the outcome of tDCS when used in conjunction with cognitive training to improve working memory. Moreover, our results have implications for training regimens, e.g., by designing interventions predicated on baseline cognitive abilities, or focusing on strategy development for specific attentional skills.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Birmingham, Visual Experience Laboratory, School of Psychology, Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486); University of Birmingham, Center for Human Brain Health (CHBH), Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486)
2 University of Birmingham, Visual Experience Laboratory, School of Psychology, Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486); University of Birmingham, Center for Human Brain Health (CHBH), Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486); South China University of Technology, Department of Neurology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.79703.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1764 3838)
3 Dalhousie University, Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology & Neuroscience, Halifax, Canada (GRID:grid.55602.34) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8200)
4 South China University of Technology, Department of Neurology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Guangzhou, China (GRID:grid.79703.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1764 3838)