ArticlePeerJ2024
Tailoring transcranial alternating current stimulation based on endogenous event-related P3 to modulate premature responses: a feasibility study.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Personalized Language Training and Bi-Hemispheric tDCS Improve Language Connectivity in Chronic Aphasia: A fMRI Case Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a brain stimulation method for modulating ongoing endogenous oscillatory activity at specified frequency during sensory and cognitive processes. Given the overlap between event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related oscillations (EROs), ERPs can be studied as putative biomarkers of the effects of tACS in the brain during cognitive/sensory task performance. Objective: This preliminary study aimed to test the feasibility of individually tailored tACS based on individual P3 (latency and frequency) elicited during a cued premature response task. Thus, tACS frequency was individually tailored to match target-P3 ERO for each participant. Likewise, the target onset in the task was adjusted to match the tACS phase and target-P3 latency. Methods: Twelve healthy volunteers underwent tACS in two separate sessions while performing a premature response task. Target-P3 latency and ERO were calculated in a baseline block during the first session to allow a posterior synchronization between the tACS and the endogenous oscillatory activity. The cue and target-P3 amplitudes, delta/theta ERO, and power spectral density (PSD) were evaluated pre and post-tACS blocks. Results: Target-P3 amplitude significantly increased after activetACS, when compared to sham. Evoked-delta during cue-P3 was decreased after tACS. No effects were found for delta ERO during target-P3 nor for the PSD and behavioral outcomes. Conclusion: The present findings highlight the possible effect of phase synchronization between individualized tACS parameters and endogenous oscillatory activity, which may result in an enhancement of the underlying process (
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.