SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Is transcranial alternating current stimulation effective for improving working memory? A three-level meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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.
- Further insights into the efficacy and moderators of transcranial alternating current stimulation for working memory.World journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Effect of theta-transcranial alternating current stimulation on working memory performance among healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of psychiatry · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Working memory, an essential component of cognitive function, can be improved through specific methods. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), an emerging technique for enhancing working memory, and explores its efficacy, influencing factors, and underlying mechanisms. A PRISMA systematic search was conducted. Hedges's g was used to quantify effect sizes. We constructed a three-level meta-analytic model to account for all effect sizes and performed subgroup analyses to assess moderating factors. Recognizing the distinct neural underpinnings of various working memory processes, we separately assessed the effects on n-back tasks and traditional working memory tasks. A total of 39 studies with 405 effect sizes were included (170 from n-back tasks and 235 from other tasks). The overall analysis indicated a net benefit of g = 0.060 of tACS on working memory. Separate analyses showed that tACS had a small positive effect on n-back tasks (g = 0.102), but almost no effect on traditional working memory tasks (g = 0.045). Further analyses revealed mainly: A moderately positive effect of theta tACS (without anti-phase stimulation) on n-back tasks (g = 0.207); and a small effect of offline stimulation on working memory maintenance (g = 0.127). Overall, tACS has minimal impact on working memory improvement, but it shows potential under certain conditions. Specifically, both online and offline theta tACS can improve n-back task performance, while only offline stimulation enhances working memory maintenance. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind these effects to make tACS an effective method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39438426What 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.