Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32687836›Full record

Trial reportNeuropsychologia2020

Failure of tDCS to modulate motor excitability and speech motor learning.

Charlotte E E Wiltshire, Kate E Watkins

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neuropsychologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Sensory basis of speech motor learning and memory.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Repeated tDCS at Clinically Relevant Field Intensity Can Boost Concurrent Motor Learning in Rats.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Localization of stuttering based on causal brain lesions.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2024
    Article
  10. Central nervous system physiology.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charlotte E E WiltshireWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Experimental Psychology, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. Electronic address: charlotte.wiltshire@psy.ox.ac.uk.
Kate E WatkinsWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Experimental Psychology, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. Electronic address: kate.watkins@psy.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N025539/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates cortical excitability in a polarity-specific way and, when used in combination with a behavioural task, it can alter performance. TDCS has the potential, therefore, for use as an adjunct to therapies designed to treat disorders affecting speech, including, but not limited to acquired aphasias and developmental stuttering. For this reason, it is important to conduct studies evaluating its effectiveness and the parameters optimal for stimulation. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effects of bi-hemispheric tDCS over speech motor cortex on performance of a complex speech motor learning task, namely the repetition of tongue twisters. A previous study in older participants showed that tDCS could modulate performance on a similar task. To further understand the effects of tDCS, we also measured the excitability of the speech motor cortex before and after stimulation. Three groups of 20 healthy young controls received: (i) anodal tDCS to the left IFG/LipM1 and cathodal tDCS to the right hemisphere homologue; or (ii) cathodal tDCS over the left and anodal over the right; or (iii) sham stimulation. Participants heard and repeated novel tongue twisters and matched simple sentences before, during and 10 min after the stimulation. One mA tDCS was delivered concurrent with task performance for 13 min. Motor excitability was measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation to elicit motor-evoked potentials in the lip before and immediately after tDCS. The study was double-blind, randomized, and sham-controlled; the design and analysis were pre-registered. Performance on the task improved from baseline to after stimulation but was not significantly modulated by tDCS. Similarly, a small decrease in motor excitability was seen in all three stimulation groups but did not differ among them and was unrelated to task performance. Bayesian analyses provide substantial evidence in support of the null hypotheses in both cases, namely that tongue twister performance and motor excitability were not affected by tDCS. We discuss our findings in the context of the previous positive results for a similar task. We conclude that tDCS may be most effective when brain function is sub-optimal due to age-related declines or pathology. Further study is required to determine why tDCS failed to modulate excitability in the speech motor cortex in the expected ways.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAdolescentAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansLearningMaleMotor CortexSpeechTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung AdultArticulatory motor cortexElectrical stimulationNon-invasive brain stimulationSpeech production

Identifiers

PMID32687836
PMCPMC7534039
OpenAlexW3043635333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.