Trial reportScientific reports2025
The effect of transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) over bilateral parietal cortex in visual cross-modal conflicts.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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.
- Bilateral parietal tRNS improves processing speed on the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT): behavioral and ERP evidence.Behavioral and brain functions : BBF · 2026Trial
- [A review of noninvasive brain-computer interfaces combined with transcranial electrical stimulation for neural rehabilitation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In complex sensory environments, visual cross-modal conflicts often affect auditory performance. The inferior parietal cortex (IPC) is involved in processing visual conflicts, namely when cognitive control processes such as inhibitory control and working memory are required. This study investigated the effect of bilateral IPC tRNS on reducing visual cross-modal conflicts and explored whether its efficacy is dependent on the conflict type. Forty-four young adults were randomly allocated to receive either active tRNS (100-640 Hz, 2-mA for 20 min) or sham stimulation. Participants repeatedly performed tasks in three phases: before, during, and after stimulation. Results showed that tRNS significantly enhanced task accuracy across both semantic and non-semantic conflicts compared to sham, as well as a greater benefit in semantic conflict after stimulation. Correlation analyses indicated that individuals with lower baseline performance benefited more from active tRNS during stimulation in the non-semantic conflict task. There were no significant differences between groups in reaction time for each conflict type task. These findings provide important evidence for the use of tRNS in reducing visual cross-modal conflicts, particularly in suppressing semantic distractors, and highlight the critical role of bilateral IPC in modulating visual cross-modal conflicts.
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.