SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on modulating executive functions in healthy populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on psychological factors in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Adjunctive transcranial direct current stimulation for cognitive improvement in schizophrenia: insights from a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of single-session transcranial direct current stimulation on response inhibition in stop-signal task performance: A meta-analysis and systematic review.General psychiatry · 2026Article
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Diabetes: A Focused and Mechanistic Review of Symptom and Function Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
Background: Conventional research has asserted that cognitive function, particularly, response inhibition, is closely related to the inferior frontal cortex (IFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or orbital frontal cortex (OFC), which belong to the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Different targets of anodal or cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) would affect the experimental results, but the stimulation of the same brain target would produce inconsistent findings. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of a-tDCS and c-tDCS applied over the PFC for healthy populations on reactive and proactive control process compared with sham or no tDCS conditions, as assessed using the Stop-signal task (SST) and Go/NoGo (GNG) task performance. Methods: This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Search was conducted on Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Scopus, and Science Direct until March 2024. Studies that assessed the inhibitory control in SST or/and GNG tasks were included to achieve a homogenous sample. Results: Fourteen studies were included for meta-analyses, which were performed for two outcome measures, namely, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and commission error (CE) rate. A-tDCS and c-tDCS over the PFC had significant ergogenic effects on SST performance (mean difference = -17.03, 95% CI [-24.62, -9.43], Conclusion: This review confirmed the engagement of PFC tDCS in reactive and proactive inhibitory processes. Future research should increase sample size and implement personalized stimulus protocols.
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.