ArticleiScience2024
Small effects of electric field on motor cortical excitability following anodal tDCS.
Article in iScience, 2024. 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, 6 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
- Methods of Computational Modelling in Studies of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Adults to Inform Protocols for Tinnitus Treatment: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- What are the optimal transcranial direct current stimulation parameters and design elements to modulate corticospinal excitability? A systematic review and longitudinal meta-analysis.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dose-response characteristics of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) remain uncertain but may be related to variability in brain electric fields due to individual anatomical factors. Here, we investigated whether the electric fields influence the responses to motor cortical tDCS. In a randomized cross-over design, 21 participants underwent 10 min of anodal tDCS with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0 mA or sham. Compared to sham, all active conditions increased the size of motor evoked potentials (MEP) normalized to the pre-tDCS baseline, irrespective of anterior or posterior magnetic test stimuli. The electric field calculated in the motor cortex of each participant had a nonlinear effect on the normalized MEP size, but its effects were small compared to those of other participant-specific factors. The findings support the efficacy of anodal tDCS in enhancing the MEP size but do not demonstrate any benefits of personalized electric field modeling in explaining tDCS response variability.
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.