↓ Skip to main content

Neural changes associated with cerebellar tDCS studied using MR spectroscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Neural changes associated with cerebellar tDCS studied using MR spectroscopy
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-018-5170-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roya Jalali, Alimul Chowdhury, Martin Wilson, R. Chris Miall, Joseph M. Galea

Abstract

Anodal cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is known to enhance motor learning, and therefore, has been suggested to hold promise as a therapeutic intervention. However, the neural mechanisms underpinning the effects of cerebellar tDCS are currently unknown. We investigated the neural changes associated with cerebellar tDCS using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). 34 healthy participants were divided into two groups which received either concurrent anodal or sham cerebellar tDCS during a visuomotor adaptation task. The anodal group underwent an additional session involving MRS in which the main inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitters: GABA and glutamate (Glu) were measured pre-, during, and post anodal cerebellar tDCS, but without the behavioural task. We found no significant group-level changes in GABA or glutamate during- or post-tDCS compared to pre-tDCS levels, however, there was large degree of variability across participants. Although cerebellar tDCS did not affect visuomotor adaptation, surprisingly cerebellar tDCS increased motor memory retention with this being strongly correlated with a decrease in cerebellar glutamate levels during tDCS across participants. This work provides novel insights regarding the neural mechanisms which may underlie cerebellar tDCS, but also reveals limitations in the ability to produce robust effects across participants and between studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 19%
Psychology 13 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 39 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,407,736
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#688
of 3,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,738
of 437,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#12
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 437,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 73% of its contemporaries.