Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30378206›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2019

Brain state and polarity dependent modulation of brain networks by transcranial direct current stimulation.

Lucia M Li, Ines R Violante, Rob Leech, Ewan Ross, Adam Hampshire, Alexander Opitz, John C Rothwell, David W Carmichael, David J Sharp

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07643363 (A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Temporal Interference Stimulation Treatment in Patients With Cognitive Impairment), which is not on this map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07643363 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Temporal Interference Stimulation Treatment in Patients With Cognitive Impairment

TypeinterventionalSponsorTianjin Huanhu HospitalRan2026 to 2029Enrolled60ConditionsAmnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment - aMCI, AD-MCI, AD - Alzheimer's Disease, FTDArmsTemporal Interference Stimulation, Sham Temporal Interference Stimulation, Targeted Cognitive Training, General Cognitive Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Neuromodulation and cognition in late-life depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lucia M LiComputational, Cognitive, and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7339-4854
Ines R ViolanteComputational, Cognitive, and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.
Rob LeechCentre for Neuroimaging Science, Kings College London, UK.
Ewan RossComputational, Cognitive, and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.
Adam HampshireComputational, Cognitive, and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.
Alexander OpitzDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
John C RothwellSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
David W CarmichaelCentre for Neuroimaging Science, Kings College London, UK.
David J SharpComputational, Cognitive, and Clinical Imaging Lab, Division of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

Defining Neuronal Circuits and Cellular Processes Underlying Resting fMRI SignalsR01MH111439 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI MILHAM, MICHAEL PETER, SCHROEDER, CHARLES E · 2016 to 2020
$5.1M
Effects of brain stimulation on neuronal dynamics and behaviorR21MH110217 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI SCHROEDER, CHARLES E · 2016 to 2017
$445k
Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-048National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProfessorshipNIH Clinical Center MH110217MH111439NIH HHS 103429/Z/13/ZNIHR Imperial BRC NIHR-RP-011-048NIHR Imperial College London Biomedical Research CentreNIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111439NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH110217Programme Grants for Applied Research NIHR-RP-011-048Sir Henry Wellcome Trust Fellowship 103045/Z/13/ZWellcome Trust 103045Wellcome Trust 103045/Z/13/Z103429/Z/13/ZWellcome Trust 103429Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Training Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite its widespread use in cognitive studies, there is still limited understanding of whether and how transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates brain network function. To clarify its physiological effects, we assessed brain network function using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) simultaneously acquired during tDCS stimulation. Cognitive state was manipulated by having subjects perform a Choice Reaction Task or being at "rest." A novel factorial design was used to assess the effects of brain state and polarity. Anodal and cathodal tDCS were applied to the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), a region involved in controlling activity large-scale intrinsic connectivity networks during switches of cognitive state. tDCS produced widespread modulation of brain activity in a polarity and brain state dependent manner. In the absence of task, the main effect of tDCS was to accentuate default mode network (DMN) activation and salience network (SN) deactivation. In contrast, during task performance, tDCS increased SN activation. In the absence of task, the main effect of anodal tDCS was more pronounced, whereas cathodal tDCS had a greater effect during task performance. Cathodal tDCS also accentuated the within-DMN connectivity associated with task performance. There were minimal main effects of stimulation on network connectivity. These results demonstrate that rIFG tDCS can modulate the activity and functional connectivity of large-scale brain networks involved in cognitive function, in a brain state and polarity dependent manner. This study provides an important insight into mechanisms by which tDCS may modulate cognitive function, and also has implications for the design of future stimulation studies.

Indexed as

AdultBrainCognitionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNerve NetPrefrontal CortexRestTranscranial Direct Current Stimulationdefault mode networkmagnetic resonance imagingsalience networkstimulation

Identifiers

PMID30378206
PMCPMC6387619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.