| Title |
“Unfocus” on foc.us: commercial tDCS headset impairs working memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-015-4391-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Steenbergen, Roberta Sellaro, Bernhard Hommel, Ulman Lindenberger, Simone Kühn, Lorenza S. Colzato |
| Abstract |
In this study, we tested whether the commercial transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) headset foc.us improves cognitive performance, as advertised in the media. A single-blind, sham-controlled, within-subject design was used to assess the effect of online and off-line foc.us tDCS-applied over the prefrontal cortex in healthy young volunteers (n = 24) on working memory (WM) updating and monitoring. WM updating and monitoring, as assessed by means of the N-back task, is a cognitive-control process that has been shown to benefit from interventions with CE-certified tDCS devices. For both online and off-line stimulation protocols, results showed that active stimulation with foc.us, compared to sham stimulation, significantly decreased accuracy performance in a well-established task tapping WM updating and monitoring. These results provide evidence for the important role of the scientific community in validating and testing far-reaching claims made by the brain training industry. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 105 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 21 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 20 | 19% |
| Netherlands | 6 | 6% |
| Australia | 6 | 6% |
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 76 | 72% |
| Scientists | 18 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 210 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 45 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 37 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 61 | 28% |
| Neuroscience | 41 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 14% |
| Unknown | 47 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 190. 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 12 December 2019.
All research outputs
#214,181
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#12
of 3,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,379
of 278,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#1
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 278,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.