ArticleScientific reports2021
Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in the primary motor cortex and its effects on sensorimotor function: a quasi-experimental single-blind sham-controlled trial.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targets for Enhancing Motor Learning: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Neural plasticity · 2026Trial
- Effect of tDCS targeting the M1 or left DLPFC on physical performance, psychophysiological responses, and cognitive function in repeated all-out cycling: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Sub-Regional Motor-Somatosensory Connectivity and Lifespan Plasticity in Functional Networks.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2026Article
- Spinal Cord Injury 2.0: Bridging the Gap Between Neurobiology, Technology, and Hope in the Era of Precision Medicine.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Review
- Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in human motor Optimization: Mechanisms, safety, and emerging applications.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Review
- Effects of a single tDCS with mirror therapy stimulation on hand function in healthy individuals.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- High-Definition Trans-Spinal Current Stimulation Improves Balance and Somatosensory Control: A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- "Transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic foot pain: A comprehensive review".eNeurologicalSci · 2024Review
- Effects of tDCS on Foot Biomechanics: A Narrative Review and Clinical Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Functional whole-brain mechanisms underlying effects of tDCS on athletic performance of male rowing athletes revealed by resting-state fMRI.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main aim was to assess the short-term effects of active-tDCS (a-tDCS) in the primary motor cortex (anodal stimulation-M1) on sensorimotor variables. These variables included discriminative sensation through the two-point discrimination (2-PD) test, tactile acuity threshold and pressure pain threshold (PPT), and electromyographic (EMG) activity compared with a sham-tDCS (s-tDCS) in healthy individuals. A total of 100 participants were included. Fifty of the participants received the a-tDCS application of 2 mA for 20 min, whereas the remaining fifty received the s-tDCS. The 2-PD and tactile acuity threshold in thenar eminence of the hand and in the dorsal part of the foot and also, PPT and EMG activity during maximal voluntary contraction in the biceps brachii and rectus femoris were assessed before and after the tDCS application. The a-tDCS intervention was not significantly superior to the s-tDCS in any variable. However, significant within-group pre- and post-intervention differences were found in the a-tDCS, such as the tactile acuity threshold in thenar eminence of the hand, with a small effect size (p = .012, d = 0.20) and in the PPT of the rectus femoris, also with a small effect size (p = .001, d = - 0.17). Regarding EMG activity, a trend towards greater activity was observed in participants with a-tDCS compared with s-tDCS, which showed a trend towards decreased EMG activity. In fact, although no differences were found between the groups, within-group differences were statistically significant in the biceps brachii pre- and postintervention (p = .023, d = - 0.16, and p = .002, d = 0.18, respectively), and also in the rectus femoris, only in the a-tDCS, with a small effect size (p = .011, d = - 0.14). This study showed no significant between-group differences in sensorimotor outcomes. A single session of tDCS in isolation appears to produce immediate effects in healthy participants on sensorimotor function; however, these effects were very small.
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.