Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 2:49 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-24 @ 2:49 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT06538259
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2024-08-05
First Post:
2024-07-27
Is Possible Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Effects of tDCS Combined With Retrieval Practice on Semantic Memory in Patients With Schizophrenia
Sponsor:
Northeast Normal University
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Retrieval Practice on Semantic Memory in Patients With Schizophrenia
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2024-07
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The semantic processing deficit stands as a central feature of cognitive abnormalities in schizophrenia. Both transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and retrieval practice have been demonstrated as external techniques capable of ameliorating the semantic processing deficit in individuals with schizophrenia. The inquiry examines whether the combined effect of tDCS and retrieval practice, following tDCS intervention targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) in patients with schizophrenia, contributes to the preservation of semantic memory in these individuals.
Investigators recruited 52 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia from hospitals. After five consecutive days of tDCS intervention (2 mA × 20 mins, twice per day), Investigators administered a word list memorization task comparing retrieval practice and restudy strategies. Subsequently, Investigators observed their immediate and delayed memory performance through tests.
Investigators recruited 52 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia from hospitals. After five consecutive days of tDCS intervention (2 mA × 20 mins, twice per day), Investigators administered a word list memorization task comparing retrieval practice and restudy strategies. Subsequently, Investigators observed their immediate and delayed memory performance through tests.
Detailed Description:
Treatment was administered by two examiners, and after a total of 10 sessions over 5 consecutive days, a final group of 52 patients participated in the learning and testing phase. Among them, 27 received anodal stimulation, while 25 received sham stimulation. Each participant of each stimulation type was involved in both learning conditions, meaning that all participants completed both retrieval and restudy learning and testing.
1. Stimulation phase:
In the anodal group, the anode was placed over the left DLPFC (F3), and the cathode was placed over the contralateral supraorbital area (FP2). A direct current of 2mA was applied for 20 minutes during each stimulation session. Stimulation was conducted twice a day, at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., for 5 consecutive days, totaling 10 sessions. In the sham group, the stimulation parameters, including the stimulation site and duration, were identical to those of the anodal group. However, during the 10-second ramp-up and ramp-down periods before and after stimulation, patients were unaware that the current was turned off.
2. Learning phase:
The experimental procedure followed the classic retrieval practice paradigm, which included a learning phase and a final test phase.
During the experiment, participants were informed that they would learn two lists of words. Subsequently, they might either learn the words again or complete a list recall test, and will be given a final test shortly thereafter. The learning of the retrieval practice list and the restudy list was conducted in a randomly balanced manner. Each word was presented for 5 seconds, with a 500-millisecond interval between words. To avoid providing secondary retrieval cues between examples, all words were shuffled pseudo-randomly within categories. Each list contained 17 words, consisting of 5 examples from each of the 3 experimental categories (15 experimental examples, 2 filler examples). The first and last words presented in each list were filler words, thus controlling for the primacy and recency effects on memory.
For the retrieval practice list, participants underwent two learning sessions and two retrieval sessions (S-T-S-T). During retrieval, participants were instructed to write down all the words they had just remembered within 5 minutes. For the restudy list, participants underwent four study sessions (S-S-S-S). Between each learning cycle, participants completed a 3-minute simple arithmetic task (dispersed attention task).
3. Testing phase:
Immediate Test: Participants were instructed to recall as many words as possible from the learned lists within 10 minutes after completing all learning tasks.
Delayed Test: Participants were informed to recall as many words as possible from the learned lists within 10 minutes 24 hours later.
1. Stimulation phase:
In the anodal group, the anode was placed over the left DLPFC (F3), and the cathode was placed over the contralateral supraorbital area (FP2). A direct current of 2mA was applied for 20 minutes during each stimulation session. Stimulation was conducted twice a day, at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., for 5 consecutive days, totaling 10 sessions. In the sham group, the stimulation parameters, including the stimulation site and duration, were identical to those of the anodal group. However, during the 10-second ramp-up and ramp-down periods before and after stimulation, patients were unaware that the current was turned off.
2. Learning phase:
The experimental procedure followed the classic retrieval practice paradigm, which included a learning phase and a final test phase.
During the experiment, participants were informed that they would learn two lists of words. Subsequently, they might either learn the words again or complete a list recall test, and will be given a final test shortly thereafter. The learning of the retrieval practice list and the restudy list was conducted in a randomly balanced manner. Each word was presented for 5 seconds, with a 500-millisecond interval between words. To avoid providing secondary retrieval cues between examples, all words were shuffled pseudo-randomly within categories. Each list contained 17 words, consisting of 5 examples from each of the 3 experimental categories (15 experimental examples, 2 filler examples). The first and last words presented in each list were filler words, thus controlling for the primacy and recency effects on memory.
For the retrieval practice list, participants underwent two learning sessions and two retrieval sessions (S-T-S-T). During retrieval, participants were instructed to write down all the words they had just remembered within 5 minutes. For the restudy list, participants underwent four study sessions (S-S-S-S). Between each learning cycle, participants completed a 3-minute simple arithmetic task (dispersed attention task).
3. Testing phase:
Immediate Test: Participants were instructed to recall as many words as possible from the learned lists within 10 minutes after completing all learning tasks.
Delayed Test: Participants were informed to recall as many words as possible from the learned lists within 10 minutes 24 hours later.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: