ArticleHealth information science and systems2023
Effectiveness assessment of repetitive transcranial alternating current stimulation with concurrent EEG and fNIRS measurement.
Article in Health information science and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variable E-field properties of dual-site tACS with phase lags.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- A multi-graph convolutional network method for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis based on multi-frequency EEG data with dual-mode connectivity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Improving working memory by electrical stimulation and cross-frequency coupling.Molecular brain · 2024Article
- No effects of the theta-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation for recall, attention control, and relation integration in working memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- EEG biomarkers analysis in different cognitive impairment after stroke: an exploration study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) exhibits the capability to interact with endogenous brain oscillations using an external low-intensity sinusoidal current and influences cerebral function. Despite its potential benefits, the physiological mechanisms and effectiveness of tACS are currently a subject of debate and disagreement. The aims of our study are to (i) evaluate the neurological and behavioral impact of tACS by conducting repetitive sham-controlled experiments and (ii) propose criteria to evaluate effectiveness, which can serve as a benchmark to determine optimal individual-based tACS protocols. In this study, 15 healthy adults participated in the experiment over two visiting: sham and tACS (i.e., 5 Hz, 1 mA). During each visit, we used multimodal recordings of the participants' brain, including simultaneous electroencephalography (EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), along with a working memory (WM) score to quantify neurological effects and cognitive changes immediately after each repetitive sham/tACS session. Our results indicate increased WM scores, hemodynamic response strength, and EEG power in theta and delta bands both during and after the tACS period. Additionally, the observed effects do not increase with prolonged stimulation time, as the effects plateau towards the end of the experiment. In conclusion, our proposed closed-loop scheme offers a promising advance for evaluating the effectiveness of tACS during the stimulation session. Specifically, the assessment criteria use participant-specific brain-based signals along with a behavioral output. Moreover, we propose a feedback efficacy score that can aid in determining the optimal stimulation duration based on a participant-specific brain state, thereby preventing the risk of overstimulation.
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.