ArticleScientific reports2025
Neuromodulation perception by the general public.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From trade-offs to translation: An interdisciplinary roadmap for neurotechnology.Science advances · 2026Review
- Challenging the prescientific frameworks of criminal justice: neurobiology and criminolytic interventions in the legalome era.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Advancements in invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation for Parkinson's disease: current findings and future directions.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 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
Abstract
The development of neurotechnologies offers exciting opportunities for novel brain interventions. Public perception plays a crucial role in determining the success and acceptance of these interventions. This study aimed to understand the general non-expert population's representation of neuromodulation and their preferences for common methods such as pharmaceutical drugs, brain implants, ultrasound, magnetic, and electrical stimulations. We conducted a comprehensive online survey with 784 participants to assess their perception of neuromodulation before and after providing information. We also asked the participants to rank their preferences for different neuromodulation techniques after being provided with information. Statistical analyses included inferential non-linear models and free-text data mining. Our findings revealed that overall, neuromodulation was positively perceived by the participants. Furthermore, providing information resulted in a significant improvement in participants' perception of neuromodulation. Ultrasound stimulation emerged as the most preferred treatment choice, while pharmaceutical drugs were considered a middle-choice option and brain implants ranked last due to safety concerns. Healthcare providers could benefit from enhancing patient education and awareness to promote informed decision-making and improve treatment adherence. Additionally, stakeholders have to address the existing distrust surrounding pharmaceutical drugs and prioritize the development and promotion of safe, non-invasive neuromodulation treatments.
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.