ArticleScientific reports2020
tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frontal and Parietal Activities Associated With Different Inhibitory Processes in a Stroop-Matching/Stop-Signal Task: A Channel-Wise fNIRS Study.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Does the stop-signal P3 reflect inhibitory control?Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Review
- Influence of noninvasive brain stimulation on connectivity and local activation: a combined tDCS and fMRI study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024Article
- Review
- Impact of electrode selection on modeling tDCS in the aging brain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Altered activation in the action observation system during synchronization in high loneliness individuals.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2022Article
- Review
- Examining the Effect of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Cognitive Training on Processing Speed in Pediatric Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Multitarget high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation improves response inhibition more than single-target high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy participants.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Volume of β-Bursts, But Not Their Rate, Predicts Successful Response Inhibition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- Anodal tDCS modulates specific processing codes during conflict monitoring associated with superior and middle frontal cortices.Brain structure & function · 2021Article
- Double-blind disruption of right inferior frontal cortex with TMS reduces right frontal beta power for action stopping.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
- A Single Mechanism for Global and Selective Response Inhibition under the Influence of Motor Preparation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
- Temporal cascade of frontal, motor and muscle processes underlying human action-stopping.eLife · 2020Article
- Subthalamic Nucleus Subregion Stimulation Modulates Inhibitory Control.Cerebral cortex communications · 2020Article
- Dual-site beta tACS over rIFG and M1 enhances response inhibition: A parallel multiple control and replication study.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to cancel an already initiated response is central to flexible behavior. While several different behavioral and neural markers have been suggested to quantify the latency of the stopping process, it remains unclear if they quantify the stopping process itself, or other supporting mechanisms such as visual and/or attentional processing. The present study sought to investigate the contributions of inhibitory and sensory processes to stopping latency markers by combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), electroencephalography (EEG) and electromyography (EMG) recordings in a within-participant design. Active and sham tDCS were applied over the inferior frontal gyri (IFG) and visual cortices (VC), combined with both online and offline EEG and EMG recordings. We found evidence that neither of the active tDCS condition affected stopping latencies relative to sham stimulation. Our results challenge previous findings suggesting that anodal tDCS over the IFG can reduce stopping latency and demonstrates the necessity of adequate control conditions in tDCS research. Additionally, while the different putative markers of stopping latency showed generally positive correlations with each other, they also showed substantial variation in the estimated latency of inhibition, making it unlikely that they all capture the same construct exclusively.
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.