ArticleeNeuro2023
Behavioral Validation of Individualized Low-Intensity Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) Protocols.
Article in eNeuro, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Roadmap towards personalized approaches and safety considerations in non-ionizing radiation: from dosimetry to therapeutic and diagnostic applications.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Individuals with psychosis receive less electric field strength during transcranial direct current stimulation compared to healthy controls.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Exciting the social butterfly: Anodal cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation modulates neural activation during predictive social mentalizing.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
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
Abstract
Large interindividual variability in the effects of low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) considerably limits its potential for clinical applications. It has been recently proposed that individualizing stimulation dose by accounting for interindividual anatomic differences would reduce the variability in electric fields (E-fields) over the targeted cortical site and therefore produce more consistent behavioral outcomes. However, improvement in behavioral outcomes following individualized dose tES has never been compared with that of conventional fixed dose tES. In this study, we aimed to empirically evaluate the effect of individualized dose tES on behavior and further compare it with the effects of sham and fixed dose stimulations. We conducted a single-blinded, sham-controlled, repeated-measures study to examine the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor learning and that of transcranial alternating current stimulation on the working memory of 42 healthy adult individuals. Each participant underwent three sessions of tES, receiving fixed dose, individualized dose, or sham stimulation over the targeted brain region for the entire behavioral task. Our results showed that the individualized dose reduced the variability in E-fields at the targeted cortical surfaces. However, there was no significant effect of tES on behavioral outcomes. We argue that although the stimulation dose and E-field intensity at the targeted cortical site are linearly correlated, the effect of E-fields on behavior seems to be more complex. Effective optimization of tES protocols warrants further research considering both neuroanatomical and functional aspects of behavior.
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.