ArticleNeuroethics2021
Neurostimulation, doping, and the spirit of sport.
Article in Neuroethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation on cycling ergometry and recovery in healthy young individuals.Brain and behavior · 2023Trial
- Electroceuticals for Paralympic Athletes: A Fair Play and Classification Concern?Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Home use of low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation in clinical practice: an IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
- Skin Lesions as Signs of Neuroenhancement in Sport.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Hybrid performances in sport: Cybathlon spectatorship for critically imagining technologies for disability futures.Medical humanities · 2025Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on non-invasive brain stimulation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- World Athletics regulations unfairly affect female athletes with differences in sex development.Journal of the philosophy of sport · 2024Article
- Research progress on the intervention of cognitive function using transcranial alternating current stimulation technology.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Probing the Promises of Noninvasive Transcranial Electrical Stimulation for Boosting Mental Performance in Sports.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is increasing interest in using neuro-stimulation devices to achieve an ergogenic effect in elite athletes. Although the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) does not currently prohibit neuro-stimulation techniques, a number of researchers have called on WADA to consider its position on this issue. Focusing on trans-cranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a case study of an imminent so-called 'neuro-doping' intervention, we argue that the emerging evidence suggests that tDCS may meet WADA's own criteria (pertaining to safety, performance-enhancing effect, and incompatibility with the 'spirit of sport') for a method's inclusion on its list of prohibited substances and methods. We begin by surveying WADA's general approach to doping, and highlight important limitations to the current evidence base regarding the performance-enhancing effect of pharmacological doping substances. We then review the current evidence base for the safety and efficacy of tDCS, and argue that despite significant shortcomings, there may be sufficient evidence for WADA to consider prohibiting tDCS, in light of the comparable flaws in the evidence base for pharmacological doping substances. In the second half of the paper, we argue that the question of whether WADA ought to ban tDCS turns significantly on the question of whether it is compatible with the 'spirit of sport' criterion. We critique some of the previously published positions on this, and advocate our own sport-specific and application-specific approach. Despite these arguments, we finally conclude by suggesting that tDCS ought to be monitored rather than prohibited due to compelling non-ideal considerations.
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.