Brain Stimulation for Cognitive Enhancement in the Older Person: State of the Art and Future Directions

Davis, Nick J.

doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0036-1

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the sample included here only covers the middle decades (20s to 60s), it is likely that the distance from scalp to brain surface will change more noticeably in an older sample (Lemaître et al, 2005). Indeed the depth of M1 did correlate with age in this sample, highlighting the need for person-specific models in older populations (Davis, 2017b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The shape of the brain within the skull may be affected by many variables, including by dietary factors and hydration (Croll et al, 2018;Duning et al, 2005), by smoking (Gallinat et al, 2006) and by chronological age (Madan & Kensinger, 2018). This latter factor is of particular interest given the possibility of using non-invasive brain stimulation to address cognitive changes in healthy ageing and in disorders of older age (Davis, 2017b;Perceval, Flöel, & Meinzer, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variance in cortical depth across the brain surface: Implications for transcranial stimulation of the brain

Davis

2020

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive technologies that read or that stimulate the brain, such as EEG, TMS, or tDCS, frequently make assumptions about the anatomical structure of the brain. This is necessary as, for most participants, the structure of the brain is not visible. Two common examples of this sort of assumption would be the use of a standard brain model in computing the source of dipole components in EEG analysis (e.g., Marin, Guerin, Baillet, Garnero, & Meunier, 1998), or the projection of a tDCS-derived computed electric field onto a standard brain model (e.g., Bikson, Rahman, & Datta, 2012). However, to what extent can we rely on a standard brain image in understanding effects in an individual person? Are there particular regions of the brain where a standardized analysis is inadvisable? The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a good example of a technology that depends strongly on understanding the structure of the brain. In TMS, a brief electric current through a coil of wire induces a rapidly varying

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variance in cortical depth across the brain surface: Implications for transcranial stimulation of the brain

Davis

2020

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Including several covariates to for inter-individual differences in tDCS response [108][109][110] strengthened the observed beneficial effect of training success in MCI (Model 1). Specifically, lower age, female gender, a lower BDI baseline score, and higher MWT score were associated with increased training success.…”

Section: Variability Of Atdcs Effectsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Impact of 3-Day Combined Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation-Visuospatial Training on Object-Location Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment

Sousa

Grittner

Rujescu

et al. 2020

JAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Associative object-location memory (OLM) is known to decline even in normal aging, and this process is accelerated in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Given the lack of curative treatment for Alzheimer's disease, activating cognitive resources during its preclinical phase might prevent progression to dementia. Objective: To evaluate the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) combined with an associative episodic memory training on OLM in MCI patients and in healthy elderly (HE). Methods: In a single-blind cross-over design, 16 MCI patients and 32 HE underwent a 3-day visuospatial OLM training paired with either 20 min or 30 s (sham) atDCS (1 mA, right temporoparietal cortex). Effects on immediate (training success) and long-term memory (1-month) were investigated by conducting Mixed Model analyses. In addition, the impact of combined intervention on within-session (online) and on between-session (offline) performance were explored.

show abstract

“…However, most of the evidence related to inter-individual differences stems from single session studies, but both CT (Jaeggi et al, 2014 ; Katz et al, 2016 ) and CT in combination with atDCS can be potentially influenced by individual variability. Thus, it is important to further identify, control and/or counteract different sources of variability in multi-session studies, to allow for more reliable atDCS effects across individuals, see also (Shin et al, 2015 ; Davis, 2017 ) for further discussion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Multiple Sessions of Object-Location-Memory Training in Healthy Older Adults

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object-location memory (OLM) is known to decline with normal aging, a process accelerated in pathological conditions like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In order to maintain cognitive health and to delay the transition from healthy to pathological conditions, novel strategies are being explored. Tentative evidence suggests that combining cognitive training and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS), both reported to induce small and often inconsistent behavioral improvements, could generate larger or more consistent improvements or both, compared to each intervention alone. Here, we explored the combined efficacy of these techniques on OLM. In a subject-blind sham-controlled cross-over design 32 healthy older adults underwent a 3-day visuospatial training paired with either anodal (20 min) or sham (30 s) atDCS (1 mA, temporoparietal). Subjects were asked to learn the correct object-location pairings on a street map, shown over five learning blocks on each training day. Acquisition performance was assessed by accuracy on a given learning block in terms of percentage of correct responses. Training success (performance on last training day) and delayed memory after 1-month were analyzed by mixed model analysis and were controlled for gender, age, education, sequence of stimulation and baseline performance. Exploratory analysis of atDCS effects on within-session (online) and between-session (offline) memory performance were conducted. Moreover, transfer effects on similar trained (visuospatial) and less similar (visuo-constructive, verbal) untrained memory tasks were explored, both immediately after training, and on follow-up. We found that atDCS paired with OLM-training did not enhance success in training or performance in 1-month delayed memory or transfer tasks. In sum, this study did not support the notion that the combined atDCS-training approach improves immediate or delayed OLM in older adults. However, specifics of the experimental design, and a non-optimal timing of atDCS between sessions might have masked beneficial effects and should be more systematically addressed in future studies.

show abstract

Brain Stimulation for Cognitive Enhancement in the Older Person: State of the Art and Future Directions

Cited by 5 publications

References 92 publications

Variance in cortical depth across the brain surface: Implications for transcranial stimulation of the brain

Variance in cortical depth across the brain surface: Implications for transcranial stimulation of the brain

Impact of 3-Day Combined Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation-Visuospatial Training on Object-Location Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment

No Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Multiple Sessions of Object-Location-Memory Training in Healthy Older Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About