ArticlePloS one2016
Are Participants Aware of the Type and Intensity of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation?
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bihemispheric anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation over temporal cortex enhances auditory selective spatial attention.Experimental brain research · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Brain stimulation over dorsomedial prefrontal cortex causally affects metacognitive bias but not mentalising.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Contrasting MEG effects of anodal and cathodal high-definition TDCS on sensorimotor activity during voluntary finger movements.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2024Article
- Single sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial random noise stimulation exert no effect on sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Motor training is improved by concurrent application of slow oscillating transcranial alternating current stimulation to motor cortex.BMC neuroscience · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Unilateral and Bilateral Parietal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Right Hemispheric Stroke Patients With Neglect Symptoms: A Proof-of-Principle Study.Brain & NeuroRehabilitation · 2022Article
- Blinding in tDCS Studies: Correct End-of-Study Guess Does Not Moderate the Effects on Associative and Working Memory.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Is the "end-of-study guess" a valid measure of sham blinding during transcranial direct current stimulation?The European journal of neuroscience · 2021Article
- The time course of ineffective sham-blinding during low-intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation.The European journal of neuroscience · 2019Article
- Single session high definition transcranial direct current stimulation to the cerebellum does not impact higher cognitive function.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is commonly used to alter cortical excitability but no experimental study has yet determined whether human participants are able to distinguish between the different types (anodal, cathodal, and sham) of stimulation. If they can then they are not blind to experimental conditions. We determined whether participants could identify different types of stimulation (anodal, cathodal, and sham) and current strengths after experiencing the sensations of stimulation during current onset and offset (which are associated with the most intense sensations) in Experiment 1 and also with a prolonged period of stimulation in Experiment 2. We first familiarized participants with anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation at both 1 and 2 mA over either primary motor or visual cortex while their sensitivity to small changes in visual stimuli was assessed. The different stimulation types were then applied for a short (Experiment 1) or extended (Experiment 2) period with participants indicating the type and strength of the stimulation on the basis of the evoked sensations. Participants were able to identify the intensity of stimulation with shorter, but not longer periods, of stimulation at better than chance levels but identification of the different stimulation types was at chance levels. This result suggests that even after exposing participants to stimulation, and ensuring they are fully aware of the existence of a sham condition, they are unable to identify the type of stimulation from transient changes in stimulation intensity or from more prolonged stimulation. Thus participants are able to identify intensity of stimulation but not the type of stimulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.