ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
The effects of prefrontal vs. parietal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation on craving, inhibition, and measures of self-esteem.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modulating food craving-related neural oscillations using tACS: study protocol for a randomized sham-controlled trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While prefrontal cortex dysfunction has been implicated in high food cravings, other cortical regions, like the parietal cortex, are potentially also involved in regulating craving. This study explored the effects of stimulating the inferior parietal lobule (IPL) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on food craving state and trait. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was administered at 1.5 mA for 5 consecutive days. Participants received 20 min of IPL, DLPFC, or sham stimulation (SHAM) each day which consisted of two rounds of 10-min stimulation, divided by a 10-min mindfulness task break. In addition, we studied inhibition and subjective psychological aspects like body image and self-esteem state and trait. To decompose immediate and cumulative effects, we measured the following on days 1 and 5: inhibition through the Go/No-go task; and food craving, self-esteem, and body appreciation through a battery of questionnaires. We found that false alarm errors decreased in the participants receiving active stimulation in the DLPFC (DLPFC-group). In contrast, false alarm errors increased in participants receiving active stimulation in the IPL (IPL-group). At the same time, no change was found in the participants receiving SHAM (SHAM-group). There was a trending reduction in craving trait in all groups. Momentary craving was decreased in the DLPFC-group and increased in IPL-group, yet a statistical difference was not reached. According to time and baseline, self-esteem and body perception improved in the IPL-group. Furthermore, self-esteem trait significantly improved over time in the DLPFC-group and IPL-group. These preliminary results indicate that tDCS modulates inhibition in frontoparietal areas with opposite effects, enhancing it in DLPFC and impairing it in IPL. Moreover, craving is moderately linked to inhibition, self-esteem, and body appreciation which seem not to be affected by neuromodulation but may rely instead on broader regions as more complex constructs. Finally, the fractionated protocol can effectively influence inhibition with milder effects on other constructs.
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.