Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35585206›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2022

More focal, less heterogeneous? Multi-level meta-analysis of cathodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation effects on language and cognition.

Jan Ostrowski, Jennifer Svaldi, Philipp A Schroeder

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Tipping the balance between fairness and efficiency through temporoparietal stimulation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jan OstrowskiDepartment of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9928-272X
Jennifer SvaldiDepartment of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9819-4752
Philipp A SchroederDepartment of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. philipp.schroeder@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9941-6086
University of Tübingen · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) is a relatively focal, novel non-invasive brain stimulation method with the potential to investigate the causal contributions of specific cortical brain regions to language and cognition. Studies with HD-tDCS typically employ a 4 × 1 electrode design with a single central target electrode surrounded by four return electrodes, among which return current intensity is evenly distributed. With cathodal HD-tDCS, neural excitability in the target region is assumed to be reduced, which offers interesting perspectives for neuropsychological research and interventions. This multi-level meta-analysis compiles published studies using cathodal HD-tDCS in 4 × 1 configuration to modulate cognition and behavior. Regarding HD-tDCS, 77 effect sizes were gathered from 11 eligible reports. We extended this database with 52 effect sizes from 11 comparable reports using conventional tDCS with cathodal polarity. We observed no significant overall effect and no moderation by within-study and between-study variables in HD. In the extended analysis, results suggested a non-linear moderation of cathodal tDCS effects by intensity, driven by negative effect sizes at 1.5 mA. However, studies varied tremendously in task parameters, outcomes, and even technical parameters. Interestingly, within-study heterogeneity exceeded between-study heterogeneity in the present sample, and moderators hardly reduced the residual heterogeneity. Across domains and configurations, both positive and negative effect sizes are possible. We discuss the findings in relation to conventional cathodal tDCS and the framework of polarity specificity. Fundamental aspects of cathodal HD-tDCS are still to be addressed in future research.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationBrainCognitionElectrodesLanguage4 × 1Anodal-excitatory cathodal-inhibitory frameworkCathodal tDCSCognitionHigh-definition tDCSLanguageTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35585206
PMCPMC9217872
OpenAlexW4280577539

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.