ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2022
Inconsistencies in mapping current distribution in transcranial direct current stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroimaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Different Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targets for Enhancing Motor Learning: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Neural plasticity · 2026Trial
- Concurrent Bilateral M1 and Anodal Cerebellar tDCS Effects on Learning of a Bimanual Video Game Task.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation for Parkinson's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of motor and cognitive effects.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: tDCS is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that has been widely studied both as a therapy for neuropsychiatric diseases and for cognitive enhancement. However, recent meta-analyses have reported significant inconsistencies amongst tDCS studies. Enhancing empirical understanding of current flow in the brain may help elucidate some of these inconsistencies. Methods: We investigated tDCS-induced current distribution by injecting a low frequency current waveform in a phantom and Results: The current distribution map in the phantom showed a clear path of current flow between the two electrodes, with more than 75% of the injected current accounted for. However, in brain, the results did evidence a current path between the two target electrodes but only some portion ( 25%) of injected current reached the cortex demonstrating that a significant fraction of the current is bypassing the brain and traveling from one electrode to the other external to the brain, probably due to conductivity differences in brain tissue types. Substantial inter-subject and intra-subject (across consecutive scans) variability in current distribution maps were also observed in human but not in phantom scans. Discussions: An
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.