Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Timing of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation to the nondominant primary motor cortex fails to modulate cortical hemodynamic activity and improve motor sequence learning.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 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.
- Patient-Centered Chronic Spinal Pain Management Using Exercise and Neuromodulation: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A review on the reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe relative timing of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and motor practice holds potential importance in modulating cortical activity and facilitating behavioral performance.
methodA single-blind, randomized, cross-over experiment was conducted. Twenty healthy participants engaged in a sequential finger-tapping task with their left hand. High-definition anodal tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) was administered over the right primary motor cortex (M1) either during (concurrent-tDCS) or before the motor practice (prior-tDCS). A sham tDCS condition was also employed. The three tDCS conditions were separated by one-week intervals. Cortical hemodynamic activity in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), supplementary motor area (SMA), and M1 measured by functional near-infrared spectroscopy, as well as motor performance assessed by number of correct sequences were examined before (T1), immediately after (T2), and 24 h after the practice (T3). The data was subjected to a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance.
resultsNo significant interaction or main effect of condition were found on motor performance. Regarding cortical hemodynamic activity, none of the regions of interest or channels exhibited a significant interaction effect or main effect of condition. No significant correlation between cortical activity and motor performance was found.
conclusionOur results cannot support the timing effect of single-session anodal tDCS on facilitating brain activity or improving motor performance. These results contribute to the growing body of evidence challenging the efficacy of a single session of exogenous stimulation as an adjunct to motor practice for promoting motor acquisition. Further research should explore alternative tDCS parameters, multiple sessions and various age groups.
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.