↓ Skip to main content

tDCS stimulation segregates words in the brain: evidence from aphasia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
tDCS stimulation segregates words in the brain: evidence from aphasia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00269
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina Fiori, Susanna Cipollari, Margherita Di Paola, Carmelina Razzano, Carlo Caltagirone, Paola Marangolo

Abstract

A number of studies have already shown that modulating cortical activity by means of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improves noun or verb naming in aphasic patients. However, it is not yet clear whether these effects are equally obtained through stimulation over the frontal or the temporal regions. In the present study, the same group of aphasic subjects participated in two randomized double-blind experiments involving two intensive language treatments for their noun and verb retrieval difficulties. During each training, each subject was treated with tDCS (20 min, 1 mA) over the left hemisphere in three different conditions: anodic tDCS over the temporal areas, anodic tDCS over the frontal areas, and sham stimulation, while they performed a noun and an action naming tasks. Each experimental condition was run in five consecutive daily sessions over three weeks with 6 days of intersession interval. The order of administration of the two language trainings was randomly assigned to all patients. Overall, with respect to the other two conditions, results showed a significant greater improvement in noun naming after stimulation over the temporal region, while verb naming recovered significantly better after stimulation of the frontal region. These improvements persisted at one month after the end of each treatment suggesting a long-term effect on recovery of the patients' noun and verb difficulties. These data clearly suggest that the mechanisms of recovery for naming can be segregated coupling tDCS with an intensive language training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 148 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 36 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 22%
Neuroscience 25 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 53 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 June 2013.
All research outputs
#12,684,199
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,495
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,719
of 280,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#485
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 280,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.