Giulia Galli1, Miguel A Vadillo2, Miroslav Sirota3, Matteo Feurra4, Angela Medvedeva5. 1. Department of Psychology, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom. Electronic address: g.galli@kingston.ac.uk. 2. Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom. 4. School of Psychology, Centre for Cognition and Decision Making, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, Moscow, Armyanskiy per. 4, c2, Russian Federation. 5. Department of Psychology, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past decade, several studies have examined the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on long-term episodic memory formation and retrieval. These studies yielded conflicting results, likely due to differences in stimulation parameters, experimental design and outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: In this work we aimed to assess the robustness of tDCS effects on long-term episodic memory using a meta-analytical approach. METHODS: We conducted four meta-analyses to analyse the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS on memory accuracy and response times. We also used a moderator analysis to examine whether the size of tDCS effects varied as a function of specific stimulation parameters and experimental conditions. RESULTS: Although all selected studies reported a significant effect of tDCS in at least one condition in the published paper, the results of the four meta-analyses showed only statistically non-significant close-to-zero effects. A moderator analysis suggested that for anodal tDCS, the duration of the stimulation and the task used to probe memory moderated the effectiveness of tDCS. For cathodal tDCS, site of stimulation was a significant moderator, although this result was based on only a few observations. CONCLUSIONS: To warrant theoretical advancement and practical implications, more rigorous research is needed to fully understand whether tDCS reliably modulates episodic memory, and the specific circumstances under which this modulation does, and does not, occur.
BACKGROUND: In the past decade, several studies have examined the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on long-term episodic memory formation and retrieval. These studies yielded conflicting results, likely due to differences in stimulation parameters, experimental design and outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: In this work we aimed to assess the robustness of tDCS effects on long-term episodic memory using a meta-analytical approach. METHODS: We conducted four meta-analyses to analyse the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS on memory accuracy and response times. We also used a moderator analysis to examine whether the size of tDCS effects varied as a function of specific stimulation parameters and experimental conditions. RESULTS: Although all selected studies reported a significant effect of tDCS in at least one condition in the published paper, the results of the four meta-analyses showed only statistically non-significant close-to-zero effects. A moderator analysis suggested that for anodal tDCS, the duration of the stimulation and the task used to probe memory moderated the effectiveness of tDCS. For cathodal tDCS, site of stimulation was a significant moderator, although this result was based on only a few observations. CONCLUSIONS: To warrant theoretical advancement and practical implications, more rigorous research is needed to fully understand whether tDCS reliably modulates episodic memory, and the specific circumstances under which this modulation does, and does not, occur.
Authors: Juan C Meléndez; Encarnación Satorres; Alfonso Pitarque; Iraida Delhom; Elena Real; Joaquin Escudero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Geneviève Richard; Anders Petersen; Kristine Moe Ulrichsen; Knut K Kolskår; Dag Alnæs; Anne-Marthe Sanders; Erlend S Dørum; Hege Ihle-Hansen; Jan E Nordvik; Lars T Westlye Journal: PeerJ Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.984