ArticleNeuroscience insights2020
Lacking Effects of Envelope Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation Indicate the Need to Revise Envelope Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation Methods.
Article in Neuroscience insights, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cutaneous Alternating Current Stimulation Can Cause a Phasic Modulation of Speech Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Reliability of Neural Entrainment in the Human Auditory System.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Cortical Tracking of a Background Speaker Modulates the Comprehension of a Foreground Speech Signal.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- Hearing Impaired Participants Improve More Under Envelope-Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation When Signal to Noise Ratio Is High.Neuroscience insights · 2021Article
- High Gamma and Beta Temporal Interference Stimulation in the Human Motor Cortex Improves Motor Functions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, several studies have reported beneficial effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in experiments regarding sound and speech perception. A new development in this field is envelope-tACS: The goal of this method is to improve cortical entrainment to the speech signal by stimulating with a waveform based on the speech envelope. One challenge of this stimulation method is timing; the electrical stimulation needs to be phase-aligned with the naturally occurring cortical entrainment to the auditory stimuli. Due to individual differences in anatomy and processing speed, the optimal time-lag between presentation of sound and applying envelope-tACS varies between participants. To better investigate the effects of envelope-tACS, we performed a speech comprehension task with a larger amount of time-lags than previous experiments, as well as an equal amount of sham conditions. No significant difference between optimal stimulation time-lag condition and best sham condition was found. Further investigation of the data revealed a significant difference between the positive and negative half-cycles of the stimulation conditions but not for sham. However, we also found a significant learning effect over the course of the experiment which was of comparable size to the effects of envelope-tACS found in previous auditory tACS studies. In this article, we discuss possible explanations for why our findings did not match up with those of previous studies and the issues that come with researching and developing envelope-tACS.
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.