Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39015825›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

Towards optimized methodological parameters for maximizing the behavioral effects of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Tyler Santander, Sara Leslie, Luna J Li, Henri E Skinner, Jessica M Simonson, Patrick Sweeney, Kaitlyn P Deen, Michael B Miller, Tad T Brunye

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tyler SantanderInstitute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Sara LeslieDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Luna J LiDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Henri E SkinnerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Jessica M SimonsonInstitute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Patrick SweeneyDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Kaitlyn P DeenDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Michael B MillerInstitute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Tad T BrunyeU. S. Army DEVCOM Soldier Center, Natick, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) administers low-intensity direct current electrical stimulation to brain regions via electrodes arranged on the surface of the scalp. The core promise of tDCS is its ability to modulate brain activity and affect performance on diverse cognitive functions (affording Methods: We surveyed tDCS effects on these various cognitive functions in healthy young adults, ultimately resulting in 721 effects across 106 published reports. Hierarchical Bayesian meta-regression models were fit to characterize how (and to what extent) these design parameters differentially predict the likelihood of positive/negative behavioral outcomes. Results: Consistent with many previous meta-analyses of tDCS effects, extensive variability was observed across tasks and measured outcomes. Consequently, most design parameters did not confer consistent advantages or disadvantages to behavioral effects-a domain-general model suggested an advantage to using within-subjects designs (versus between-subjects) and the tendency for cathodal stimulation (relative to anodal stimulation) to produce reduced behavioral effects, but these associations were scarcely-evident in domain-specific models. Discussion: These findings highlight the urgent need for tDCS studies to more systematically probe the effects of these parameters on behavior to fulfill the promise of identifying causal links between brain function and cognition.

Indexed as

meta-analysismeta-regressionnon-invasive brain stimulationresearch methodstranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39015825
PMCPMC11250584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.