ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Can visual cortex non-invasive brain stimulation improve normal visual function? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Enhance Perceptual Learning of Chinese Character Reading in Adults With Macular Degeneration.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Trial
- Improving Peripheral Reading With Noninvasive Transcranial Electrical Stimulation of Early Visual Areas.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Trial
- Visual Neurorestoration: An Expert Review of Current Strategies for Restoring Vision in Humans.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Comparison of Physiological Brain Responses Evoked by Visual and Electrical Stimulation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Oscillatory Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and the Amplitude-Modulated Frequency Dictate the Quantitative Features of Phosphenes.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation does not alter GABA concentration or functional connectivity in the normal visual cortex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Lesion network guided delta frequency neuromodulation improves cognition in patients with psychosis spectrum disorders: A pilot study.Asian journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Visual cortex anodal transcranial direct current stimulation does not alter reading performance for Chinese presented character-by-character to normal peripheral vision in older adults.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Enhancing visual perceptual learning using transcranial electrical stimulation: Transcranial alternating current stimulation outperforms both transcranial direct current and random noise stimulation.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Brain State-Dependent Non-Invasive Neurostimulation with EEG Feedback: Achievements and Prospects (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2023Review
- The effect of montages of transcranial alternating current stimulation on occipital responses-a sham-controlled pilot study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The effect of acupuncture at theFrontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Multiple studies have explored the use of visual cortex non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to enhance visual function. These studies vary in sample size, outcome measures, and methodology. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the effects of NIBS on visual functions in human participants with normal vision. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines, and a review protocol was registered with PROSPERO before study commencement (CRD42021255882). We searched Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, PubMed, OpenGrey and Web of Science using relevant keywords. The search covered the period from 1st January 2000 until 1st September 2021. Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software was used for quantitative analysis. Results: Fifty studies were included in the systematic review. Only five studies utilized transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and no TMS studies met our pre-specified criteria for meta-analysis. Nineteen transcranial electrical stimulation studies (tES, 38%) met the criteria for meta-analysis and were the focus of our review. Meta-analysis indicated acute effects (Hedges's g = 0.232, 95% CI: 0.023-0.442, Conclusion: There are significant effects of visual cortex tES on contrast sensitivity, VEP amplitude, an index of cortical excitability, and crowding among normally sighted individuals. Additional studies are required to enable a comparable meta-analysis of TMS effects. Future studies with robust experimental designs are needed to extend these findings to populations with vision loss. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov/, identifier CRD42021255882.
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.