Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of a tDCS and cognitive training intervention on task-based functional connectivity

  • Original Article
  • Published:
GeroScience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Declines in several cognitive domains, most notably processing speed, occur in non-pathological aging. Given the exponential growth of the older adult population, declines in cognition serve as a significant public health issue that must be addressed. Promising studies have shown that cognitive training in older adults, particularly using the useful field of view (UFOV) paradigm, can improve cognition with moderate to large effect sizes. Additionally, meta-analyses have found that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive form of brain stimulation, can improve cognition in attention/processing speed and working memory. However, only a handful of studies have looked at concomitant tDCS and cognitive training, usually with short interventions and small sample sizes. The current study assessed the effect of a tDCS (active versus sham) and a 3-month cognitive training intervention on task-based functional connectivity during completion of the UFOV task in a large older adult sample (N = 153). We found significant increased functional connectivity between the left and right pars triangularis (the ROIs closest to the electrodes) following active, but not sham tDCS. Additionally, we see trending behavioral improvements associated with these functional connectivity changes in the active tDCS group, but not sham. Collectively, these findings suggest that tDCS and cognitive training can be an effective modulator of task-based functional connectivity above and beyond a cognitive training intervention alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are managed under the data sharing agreement established with NIA and the parent R01 clinical trial Data Safety and Monitoring Board in the context of an recently completed Phase III clinical trial (ACT study, R01AG054077). All trial data will be made publicly available 2 years after completion of the parent clinical trial, per NIA and DSMB agreement. Requests for data can be submitted to the ACT Publication and Presentation (P&P) Committee and will require submission of a data use, authorship, and analytic plan for review by the P&P committee (ajwoods@phhp.ufl.edu).

References

  1. Park DC, Lautenschlager G, Hedden T, et al. Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychol Aging. 2002;17:299–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Salthouse TA. Aging and measures of processing speed. Biol Psychol. 2000;54:35–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lampit A, Hallock H, Valenzuela M. Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS Med. 2014;11. Epub ahead of print https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756.

  4. Lampit A, Hallock H, Suo C, et al. Cognitive training-induced short-term functional and long-term structural plastic change is related to gains in global cognition in healthy older adults: a pilot study. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards JD, Xu H, Clark DO, et al. Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia. Alzheimers Dement Transl Res Clin Interv. 2017;3:603–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, et al. Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults. Jama. 2002;288:2271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rebok GW, Ball K, Guey LT, et al. Ten-year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday functioning in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:16–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Hardcastle C, Hausman HK, Kraft JN, et al. Higher-order resting state network association with the useful field of view task in older adults. GeroScience. 2022;44:131–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kraft JN, Hausman HK, Hardcastle C, et al. Task-based functional connectivity of the useful field of view (UFOV) fMRI task. GeroScience. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00632-1.

  10. Erickson KI, Colcombe SJ, Wadhwa R, et al. Training-induced functional activation changes in dual-task processing: an fMRI study. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:192–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones KT, Stephens JA, Alam M, et al. Longitudinal neurostimulation in older adults improves working memory. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stephens JA, Berryhill ME. Older adults improve on everyday tasks after working memory training and neurostimulation. Brain Stimulat. 2016;9:553–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Šimko P, Pupíková M, Gajdoš M, et al. Cognitive aftereffects of acute tDCS coupled with cognitive training: an fMRI study in healthy seniors. Neural Plast. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6664479.

  14. Andrews SC, Hoy KE, Enticott PG, et al. Improving working memory: the effect of combining cognitive activity and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Brain Stimulat. 2011;4:84–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nissim NR, O’Shea A, Indahlastari A, et al. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation paired with cognitive training on functional connectivity of the working memory network in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2019;11 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2019.00340.

  16. Bikson M, Grossman P, Thomas C, et al. Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimulat. 2016;9:641–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M, et al. A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127:1031–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Antal A, Alekseichuk I, Bikson M, et al. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:1774–809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527:633–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Indahlastari A, Hardcastle C, Albizu A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation to remediate age-related cognitive decline in healthy older adults. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;17:971–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Opitz A, Paulus W, Will S, et al. Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation. NeuroImage. 2015;109:140–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kronberg G, Bridi M, Abel T, et al. Direct current stimulation modulates LTP and LTD: activity dependence and dendritic effects. Brain Stimulat. 2017;10:e23–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kronberg G, Rahman A, Sharma M, et al. Direct current stimulation boosts hebbian plasticity in vitro. Brain Stimulat. 2020;13:287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Evangelista ND, O’Shea A, Kraft JN, et al. Independent contributions of dorsolateral prefrontal structure and function to working memory in healthy older adults. Cereb Cortex. 2021;31:1732–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kraft JN, Albizu A, O’Shea A, et al. Functional neural correlates of a useful field of view (UFOV)-based fMRI task in older adults. Cereb Cortex. 2022;32:1993–2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cabeza R. Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: the HAROLD model. Psychol Aging. 2002;17:85–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brehmer Y, Rieckmann A, Bellander M, et al. Neural correlates of training-related working-memory gains in old age. NeuroImage. 2011;58:1110–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Polanía R, Paulus W, Antal A, et al. Introducing graph theory to track for neuroplastic alterations in the resting human brain: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. NeuroImage. 2011;54:2287–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Krishnamurthy V, Gopinath K, Brown GS, et al. Resting-state fMRI reveals enhanced functional connectivity in spatial navigation networks after transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurosci Lett. 2015;604:80–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Keeser D, Meindl T, Bor J, et al. Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation changes connectivity of resting-state networks during fMRI. J Neurosci. 2011;31:15284–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Nissim NR, O’Shea A, Indahlastari A, et al. Effects of in-scanner bilateral frontal tDCS on functional connectivity of the working memory network in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2019;11:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bachtiar V, Near J, Johansen-Berg H, et al. Modulation of GABA and resting state functional connectivity by transcranial direct current stimulation. eLife. 2015;4:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Caulfield KA, Indahlastari A, Nissim NR, et al. Electric field strength from prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation determines degree of working memory response: a potential application of reverse-calculation modeling? Neuromodulation. 2022;25:578–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Indahlastari A, Albizu A, O’Shea A, et al. Modeling transcranial electrical stimulation in the aging brain. Brain Stimulat. 2020;13:664–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chee MWL, Chen KHM, Zheng H, et al. Cognitive function and brain structure correlations in healthy elderly East Asians. NeuroImage. 2009;46:257–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Batsikadze G, Moliadze V, Paulus W, et al. Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J Physiol. 2013;591:1987–2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mosayebi Samani M, Agboada D, Jamil A, et al. Titrating the neuroplastic effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex. Cortex. 2019;119:350–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U, et al. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol. 2003;553:293–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mosayebi-Samani M, Melo L, Agboada D, et al. Ca2+ channel dynamics explain the nonlinear neuroplasticity induction by cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;38:63–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Woods AJ, Cohen R, Marsiske M, et al. Augmenting cognitive training in older adults (the ACT study): design and methods of a phase III tDCS and cognitive training trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;65:19–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aust F, Edwards JD. Incremental validity of useful field of view subtests for the prediction of instrumental activities of daily living. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2016;38:497–515.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:845–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hausman HK, Alexander GE, Cohen R, et al. Primary outcomes from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): a tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial. Brain Stimulat. 2023;16:904–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Nieto-Castanon A. Conn: a functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connect. 2012;2:125–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Behzadi Y, Restom K, Liau J, et al. A component based noise correction method (CompCor) for BOLD and perfusion based fMRI. NeuroImage. 2007;37:90–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, et al. Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. NeuroImage. 2012;59:2142–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Friston KJ, Williams S, Howard R, et al. Movement-related effects in fMRI time-series. Magn Reson Med. 1996;35:346–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yeo BTT, Tandi J, Chee MWL. Functional connectivity during rested wakefulness predicts vulnerability to sleep deprivation. NeuroImage. 2015;111:147–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate : a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. 1995;57:289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Chan MY, Park DC, Savalia NK, et al. Decreased segregation of brain systems across the healthy adult lifespan. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415122111.

  51. Goh JOS. Functional dedifferentiation and altered connectivity in older adults: neural accounts of cognitive aging. Aging Dis. 2

  52. Hardcastle C, Hausman HK, Kraft JN, et al. Proximal improvement and higher-order resting state network change after multidomain cognitive training intervention in healthy older adults. GeroScience. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00535-1.

  53. Indahlastari A, Dunn AL, Pedersen S, et al. The importance of accurately representing electrode position in transcranial direct current stimulation computational models. Brain Stimulat. 2023;2:33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Woods AJ, Bryant V, Sacchetti D, et al. Effects of electrode drift in transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimulat. 2015;8:515–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Albizu A, Fang R, Indahlastari A, et al. Machine learning and individual variability in electric field characteristics predict tDCS treatment response. Brain Stimulat. 2020;13:1753–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Indahlastari A, Albizu A, Kraft JN, et al. Individualized tDCS modeling predicts functional connectivity changes within the working memory network in older adults. Brain Stimulat. 2021;14:1205–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. van den Heuvel MP, Hulshoff Pol HE. Exploring the brain network: a review on resting-state fMRI functional connectivity. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;20:519–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shaw EE, Schultz AP, Sperling RA, et al. Functional connectivity in multiple cortical networks is associated with performance across cognitive domains in older adults. Brain Connect. 2015;5:505–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Fjell AM, Sneve MH, Storsve AB, et al. Brain events underlying episodic memory changes in aging: a longitudinal investigation of structural and functional connectivity. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26:1272–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Geerligs L, Renken RJ, Saliasi E, et al. A brain-wide study of age-related changes in functional connectivity. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25:1987–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Alvarez-Alvarado S, Boutzoukas EM, Kraft JN, et al. Impact of transcranial direct current stimulation and cognitive training on frontal lobe neurotransmitter concentrations. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kraft JN, O’Shea A, Albizu A, et al. Structural neural correlates of double decision performance in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020;12:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ross LA, Webb CE, Whitaker C, et al. The effects of useful field of view training on brain activity and connectivity. J Gerontol Ser B. 2018;00:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Russo R, Wallace D, Fitzgerald PB, et al. Perception of comfort during active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation: a double blind study. Brain Stimulat. 2013;6:946–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Willis SL, Nesselroade CS. Long-term effects of fluid ability training in old-old age. Dev Psychol. 1990;26:905–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Yang L, Krampe RT. Long-term maintenance of retest learning in young old and oldest old adults. J Gerontol - Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64:608–11.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Willis SL, Tennstedt SL, Marsiske M, et al. Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;296:2805–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of our participants for their time and commitment to the study. We would like to acknowledge the work of all the research assistants who collected this data and their instrumental role in making this manuscript possible.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA R01AG054077, NIA K01AG050707, NIA P30AG019610, T32AG020499), the State of Arizona and Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), the University of Florida Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory Clinical Translational Research, the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL134621).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, 1249 Center Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32603, USA

    Jessica N. Kraft, Aprinda Indahlastari, Emanuel M. Boutzoukas, Hanna K. Hausman, Cheshire Hardcastle, Alejandro Albizu, Andrew O’Shea, Nicole D. Evangelista, Steven T. DeKosky, Michael Marsiske, Ronald Cohen, Eric Porges & Adam J. Woods

  2. Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Jessica N. Kraft, Alejandro Albizu & Adam J. Woods

  3. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Aprinda Indahlastari, Emanuel M. Boutzoukas, Hanna K. Hausman, Cheshire Hardcastle, Andrew O’Shea, Nicole D. Evangelista, Michael Marsiske, Ronald Cohen, Eric Porges & Adam J. Woods

  4. Brain Imaging, Behavior and Aging Laboratory, Department of Psychology and Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Emily J. Van Etten, Pradyumna K. Bharadwaj, Hyun Song & Samantha G. Smith

  5. McKnight Brain Institute and Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Steven T. DeKosky & Gene E. Alexander

  6. Department of Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Physiological Sciences Graduate Interdisciplinary Programs, and BIO5 Institute, University of Arizona and Arizona Alzheimer’s Consortium, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Georg A. Hishaw & Gene E. Alexander

  7. Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Samuel Wu

Authors
  1. Jessica N. Kraft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aprinda Indahlastari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emanuel M. Boutzoukas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanna K. Hausman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cheshire Hardcastle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alejandro Albizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrew O’Shea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicole D. Evangelista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Emily J. Van Etten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pradyumna K. Bharadwaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Hyun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Samantha G. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Steven T. DeKosky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Georg A. Hishaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Samuel Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Michael Marsiske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Ronald Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Gene E. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Eric Porges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Adam J. Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JK and AW contributed to the conception and design of this specific study. JK collected and extracted data, performed statistical analyses, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EP, GH, SW, SD, GA, MM, RC, and AW were involved in project administration. All authors contributed to manuscript revisions, read, and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam J. Woods.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 22 kb)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kraft, J.N., Indahlastari, A., Boutzoukas, E.M. et al. The impact of a tDCS and cognitive training intervention on task-based functional connectivity. GeroScience 46, 3325–3339 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-024-01077-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-024-01077-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation