ClinicalTrials.Veeva

Menu

Modulating Prospective Memory in Older Adults With Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

U

University of Bern

Status

Completed

Conditions

Healthy Aging

Treatments

Device: Sham stimulation
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Identifiers

NCT04882527
2019-01599

Details and patient eligibility

About

Prospective memory is the ability to remember to carry out intentions with a certain delay (e.g. remember to buy stamps when passing a postal office). Prospective memory tasks require a large degree of self-initiated retrieval and in the absence of a prompt to recall, people must 'remember to remember' by their own volition. Thus, prospective memory is a challenge - especially in old age with increasing health-related prospective memory demands.

Previous studies reported links between neural activity in specific brain regions and prospective memory performance. Yet, the mere occurrence of a change in brain activity in concomitance with performance of a behavioral task is not sufficient to confirm a causal relationship between the two phenomena. Therefore, this study aims to apply non-invasive brain stimulation to facilitate or inhibit activity in different brain regions presumed to be functionally associated with prospective memory. Additional to the prospective memory tasks, the investigators will implement control tasks (i.e., attention) to assess whether stimulation will specifically enhance prospective memory performance or whether other cognitive functions will be modulated additionally.

It is hypothesized that stimulation will lead to changes in prospective memory functioning. Further, the investigators expect that facilitation of attentional processes might be linked to prospective memory improvements.

Full description

This study aims to modulate neural activity in the left and right inferior frontal lobe as well as in the right superior parietal lobe via high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) in older adults. There is evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that these areas are involved in prospective memory performance in younger and older adults but a causal relation between activity in these areas and responses in prospective memory tasks has not been established so far.

A double blind, sham-controlled, parallel group design will be applied. Healthy older adults (n=105) will participate in two separate sessions: During the first baseline session, no stimulation is applied. For the second session, participants will then be randomly assigned to one of seven experimental groups (cathodal vs. anodal right inferior frontal lobe (rIFL); cathodal vs. anodal left inferior frontal lobe (lIFL); cathodal vs. anodal right superior parietal lobe (rSPL); or sham). Real stimulation will be applied during 20 minutes with one Milliamp (mA). In case of sham stimulation (i.e., control intervention), the electrode positions and the attachment procedures correspond to those of real tDCS but the electrical current will only be ramped up to one mA and switched off completely after 30 s of stimulation.

The primary objective of this study is the modulation of prospective memory performance in a computer-based task via tDCS. Further, this study aims to clarify the role of attentional control for prospective memory performance, as both processes seem to recruit similar neural structures. Additionally, naturalistic and self-rated prospective memory performance will be assessed.

It is hypothesized that stimulation of the right inferior frontal lobe will lead to changes in prospective memory performance and attentional processes. Whether cathodal or anodal stimulation will enhance performance is not clear yet, since previous fMRI studies were inconsistent about activity changes in older adults. Further, the investigators expect that anodal stimulation of the left inferior frontal cortex may lead to faster responses to prospective memory stimuli, whereas cathodal stimulation of the same area may lead to prolonged reaction times. It is hypothesized that attentional control will not be affected by stimulation of the left inferior frontal lobe. Finally, the investigators expect that anodal stimulation of the right superior parietal cortex will lead to better prospective memory and attentional control performance, whereas cathodal stimulation will have detrimental effects on both functions.

Enrollment

106 patients

Sex

All

Ages

60 to 80 years old

Volunteers

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

  • No cognitive impairments
  • Fluent in German
  • Right-handed
  • Normal or corrected-to-normal vision
  • Non-smokers
  • Written informed consent

Exclusion criteria

  • Current/lifetime severe psychiatric or neurological disorder
  • Metal implants in the head area
  • Psychotropic medication
  • Dermatosis
  • Current/lifetime alcohol abuse
  • Magnetisable implants

Trial design

Primary purpose

Basic Science

Allocation

Randomized

Interventional model

Parallel Assignment

Masking

Double Blind

106 participants in 7 patient groups

anodal stimulation of the rIFL
Experimental group
Description:
Anodal stimulation over the right inferior frontal lobe
Treatment:
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation
cathodal stimulation of the rIFL
Experimental group
Description:
Cathodal stimulation over the right inferior frontal lobe
Treatment:
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation
anodal stimulation of the lIFL
Experimental group
Description:
Anodal stimulation over the left inferior frontal lobe
Treatment:
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation
cathodal stimulation of the lIFL
Experimental group
Description:
Cathodal stimulation over the left inferior frontal lobe
Treatment:
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation
anodal stimulation of the rSPL
Experimental group
Description:
Anodal stimulation over the right superior parietal lobe
Treatment:
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation
cathodal stimulation of the rSPL
Experimental group
Description:
Cathodal stimulation over the right superior parietal lobe
Treatment:
Device: Non-invasive brain stimulation
sham stimulation
Sham Comparator group
Description:
Sham stimulation over either of the three real stimulation areas
Treatment:
Device: Sham stimulation

Trial contacts and locations

1

Loading...

Central trial contact

Jessica Peter, PD Dr.; Nadine Schmidt, MSc.

Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov

Clinical trials

Find clinical trialsTrials by location
© Copyright 2026 Veeva Systems