Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31620829›Full record

ReviewExperimental brain research2019

Current challenges: the ups and downs of tACS.

Nicholas S Bland, Martin V Sale

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Cutaneous Alternating Current Stimulation Can Cause a Phasic Modulation of Speech Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Nicholas S BlandQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia. n.bland@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9610-9972
Martin V SaleQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2913-9212

Funding

Office of Naval Research (US) N62909-17-1-2139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The non-invasive delivery of electric currents through the scalp (transcranial electrical stimulation) is a popular tool for neuromodulation, mostly due to its highly adaptable nature (waveform, montage) and tolerability at low intensities (< 2 mA). Applied rhythmically, transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) may entrain neural oscillations in a frequency- and phase-specific manner, providing a causal perspective on brain-behaviour relationships. While the past decade has seen many behavioural and electrophysiological effects of tACS that suggest entrainment-mediated effects in the brain, it has been difficult to reconcile such reports with the weak intracranial field strengths (< 1 V/m) achievable at conventional intensities. In this review, we first describe the ongoing challenges faced by users of tACS. We outline the biophysics of electrical brain stimulation and the factors that contribute to the weak field intensities achievable in the brain. Since the applied current predominantly shunts through the scalp-stimulating the nerves that innervate it-the plausibility of transcutaneous (rather than transcranial) effects of tACS is also discussed. In examining the effects of tACS on brain activity, the complex problem of salvaging electrophysiological recordings from artefacts of tACS is described. Nevertheless, these challenges by no means mark the rise and fall of tACS: the second part of this review outlines the recent advancements in the field. We describe some ways in which artefacts of tACS may be better managed using high-frequency protocols, and describe innovative methods for current interactions within the brain that offer either dynamic or more focal current distributions while also minimising transcutaneous effects.

Indexed as

ArtifactsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationHumansArtefactElectric fieldOscillationPhaseStimulationTranscranial

Identifiers

PMID31620829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.