ArticleScientific reports2022
Intervention is a better predictor of tDCS mind-wandering effects than subjective beliefs about experimental results.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blinding in non-invasive brain stimulation research is a topic of intense debate, especially regarding the efficacy of sham-controlled methods for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). A common approach to assess blinding success is the inclusion of correct guess rate. However, this method cannot provide insight into the effect of unblinding on observed stimulation outcomes. Thus, the implementation of measures to systematically evaluate subjective expectation regarding stimulation is needed. Previous work evaluated subjective effects in an earlier study which reported a mind-wandering and tDCS data set and concluded that subjective belief drove the pattern of results observed. Here we consider the subjective and objective intervention effects in a key contrast from that data set-2 mA vs. sham-which was not examined in the reanalysis. In addition, we examine another key contrast from a different tDCS mind-wandering study that employed similar methodology. Our findings support objective intervention as the strongest predictor of the observed effects of mind-wandering in both re-analyses, over and above that of subjective intervention. However, it is important to control for and understand the possible inadequacies of sham-controlled methods.
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.