ArticleScientific reports2024
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cycling performance on the 3-minute aerobic test (3mAT): placebo and nocebo effects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Negative expectations and measurable movement mechanics: a scoping review of the nocebo effect on motor performance.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) at Fp3-Fp2 Reduces the Face Inversion Effect: Evidence Against an Expectancy Account.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- The impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on the neuro-muscular control strategies of penalty kicks in soccer players.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used extensively but research on its efficacy within the sport and exercise science realm has been inconsistent. There may be placebo and nocebo effects present with its use. Our objective was to determine if subjects can be influenced to believe that tDCS will improve cycling performance. Subjects were separated into a belief group (B; 5 women, 6 men) and a disbelief group (DB; 9 women, 3 men). The B group was told that the stimulation would improve performance on a subsequent cycling test. In the DB group, subjects were told that it was not effective and would hinder performance. The cycling test was a 3-minute aerobic test (3mAT) where subjects maintained the highest power output possible for three minutes, after completing a full 20 min warmup. During the warmup, they were given either no stimulation (control) or 2 mA bilateral stimulation over the M1 region. There was a very slight increase in maximal minute power for the B group (0.22%) and a small decrease for the DB group (-1.00%); however, these differences were not significant. No significant differences were found for any of the cycling variables. In conclustion, tDCS was unable to improve performance on the 3mAT. These findings, in conjunction with others, suggest that the acute effect of tDCS is still questionable when aiming to enhance endurance performance.
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.