↓ Skip to main content

Anodal motor cortex stimulation paired with movement repetition increases anterograde interference but not savings

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
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.
Title
Anodal motor cortex stimulation paired with movement repetition increases anterograde interference but not savings
Published in
European Journal of Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.1111/ejn.12699
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li‐Ann Leow, Geoff Hammond, Aymar de Rugy

Abstract

Retention of motor adaptation is evident in savings, where initial learning improves subsequent learning, and anterograde interference, where initial learning impairs subsequent learning. Previously, we proposed that use-dependent movement biases induced by movement repetition contribute to anterograde interference, but not to savings. Here, we evaluate this proposal by limiting or extending movement repetition while stimulating the motor cortex (M1) with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a brain stimulation technique known to increase use-dependent plasticity when applied during movement repetition. Participants first adapted to a counterclockwise rotation of visual feedback imposed either abruptly (extended repetition) or gradually (limited repetition) in a first block (A1), during which either sham or anodal tDCS (2 mA) was applied over M1. Anterograde interference was then assessed in a second block (B) with a clockwise rotation, and savings in a third block (A2) with a counterclockwise rotation. Anodal M1 tDCS elicited more anterograde interference than sham stimulation with extended but not with limited movement repetition. Conversely, anodal M1 tDCS did not affect savings with either limited or extended repetition of the adapted movement. Crucially, the effect of anodal M1 tDCS on anterograde interference did not require large errors evoked by an abrupt perturbation schedule, as anodal M1 tDCS combined with extended movement repetition within a gradual perturbation schedule similarly increased anterograde interference but not savings. These findings demonstrate that use-dependent plasticity contributes to anterograde interference but not to savings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 30%
Psychology 9 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,188,757
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Neuroscience
#4,219
of 6,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,009
of 241,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Neuroscience
#33
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 241,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.