ArticleHeliyon2024
Timing of transcranial direct current stimulation at M1 does not affect motor sequence learning.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation to the nondominant primary motor cortex fails to modulate cortical hemodynamic activity and improve motor sequence learning.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Absence of evidence for post-training tDCS effects on motor memory consolidation and premotor-primary motor cortex interaction: a resting-state EEG study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Administering anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at the primary motor cortex (M1) at various temporal loci relative to motor training is reported to affect subsequent performance gains. Stimulation administered in conjunction with motor training appears to offer the most robust benefit that emerges during offline epochs. This conclusion is made, however, based on between-experiment comparisons that involved varied methodologies. The present experiment addressed this shortcoming by administering the same 15-minute dose of anodal tDCS at M1 before, during, or after practice of a serial reaction time task (SRTT). It was anticipated that exogenous stimulation during practice with a novel SRTT would facilitate offline gains. Ninety participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: tDCS before practice, tDCS during practice, tDCS after practice, or no tDCS. Each participant was exposed to 15 min of 2 mA of tDCS and motor training of an eight-element SRTT. The anode was placed at the right M1 with the cathode at the left M1, and the left hand was used to execute the SRTT. Test blocks were administered 1 and 24 h after practice concluded. The results revealed significant offline gain for all conditions at the 1-hour and 24-hour test blocks. Importantly, exposure to anodal tDCS at M1 at any point before, during, or after motor training failed to change the trajectory of skill development as compared to the no-stimulation control condition. These data add to the growing body of evidence questioning the efficacy of a single bout of exogenous stimulation as an adjunct to motor training for fostering skill learning.
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.