Trial reportThe European journal of neuroscience2016
Systematic assessment of duration and intensity of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on primary motor cortex excitability.
Trial report in The European journal of neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Transcranial direct current stimulation leads to faster acquisition of motor skills, but effects are not maintained at retention.PloS one · 2022Trial
- The effect of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation intensity on motor performance in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Trial
- Failure of tDCS to modulate motor excitability and speech motor learning.Neuropsychologia · 2020Trial
- Expanding the parameter space of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- Efficacy of tRNS and 140 Hz tACS on motor cortex excitability seemingly dependent on sensitivity to sham stimulation.Experimental brain research · 2019Trial
- Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhances Short-Term Balance During Locomotive Training in Older Adults with Locomotive Syndrome: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- What are the optimal transcranial direct current stimulation parameters and design elements to modulate corticospinal excitability? A systematic review and longitudinal meta-analysis.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- Dose-response of tDCS effects on motor learning and cortical excitability: A preregistered study.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Understanding the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on the neurovascular unit: a narrative review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
- Effects of Different Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Intensities over Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Brain Electrical Activity and Heart Rate Variability in Healthy and Fibromyalgia Women: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Lower-Limb Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Small effects of electric field on motor cortical excitability following anodal tDCS.iScience · 2024Article
- Transspinal Direct Current Electrical Stimulation Selectively Affects the Excitability of the Corticospinal System, Depending on the Intensity but Not Motor Skills.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Self-Regulatory Neuronal Mechanisms and Long-Term Challenges in Schizophrenia Treatment.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Inter-Individual Variability in tDCS Effects: A Narrative Review on the Contribution of Stable, Variable, and Contextual Factors.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Brain Electrical Activity, Heart Rate Variability, and Dual-Task Performance in Healthy and Fibromyalgia Women: A Study Protocol.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhances Exercise Performance: A Mini Review of the Underlying Mechanisms.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2022Review
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting the Entire Motor Network Does Not Increase Corticospinal Excitability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since the initial demonstration of linear effects of stimulation duration and intensity on the strength of after-effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), few studies have systematically assessed how varying these parameters modulates corticospinal excitability. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the effects of anodal tDCS on corticospinal excitability at two stimulation intensities (1 mA, 2 mA) and durations (10 min, 20 min), and determine the value of several variables in predicting response. Two groups of 20 individuals received, in two separate sessions, 1 and 2 mA anodal tDCS (left primary motor cortex (M1)-right supra-orbital montage) for either 10- or 20-min. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered over left M1 and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the contralateral hand were recorded prior to tDCS and every 5 min for 20-min post-tDCS. The following predictive variables were evaluated: I-wave recruitment, stimulation intensity, baseline M1 excitability and inter-trial MEP variability. Results show that anodal tDCS failed to significantly modulate corticospinal excitability in all conditions. Furthermore, low response rates were identified across all parameter combinations. No baseline measure was significantly correlated with increases in MEP amplitude. However, a decrease in inter-trial MEP variability was linked to response to anodal tDCS. In conclusion, the present findings are consistent with recent reports showing high levels of inter-subject variability in the neurophysiological response to tDCS, which may partly explain inconsistent group results. Furthermore, the level of variability in the neurophysiological outcome measure, i.e. MEPs, appears to be related to response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27336413What 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.