Trial reportThe European journal of neuroscience2025
Implicit Motor Learning Under Anodal or Cathodal tDCS During fMRI Induces Partially Distinct Network Responses.
Trial report in The European journal of neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with cognitive rehabilitation on cognitive function and activities of daily living in patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Does tDCS Enhance Complex Motor Skill Acquisition? Evidence from a Golf-Putting Task.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) and cathodal tDCS (ctDCS) affect brain networks is still unclear. Previous fMRI studies have yielded controversial results regarding the effects of atDCS and ctDCS on fMRI activation. The present study hypothesizes that the choice of fMRI paradigm may be a contributing factor to this divergence. Therefore, the present study employed two distinct fMRI paradigms, characterized by varying degrees of complexity: finger tapping as a simple fMRI paradigm and an implicit serial reaction time task (SRTT) as a more challenging paradigm. Seventy-five healthy subjects were randomized to receive either atDCS, ctDCS, or sham stimulation during fMRI. The main effects of the blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal were contrasted between groups. SRTT, but not FT, was capable of eliciting differences in modulatory effects on the network between groups. Analysis of functional connectivity between ROIs showed that atDCS and ctDCS shared common and distinct SRTT networks. Correlations between BOLD signal (in ROIs) and the reaction time (RT) recorded during fMRI showed that in the atDCS group, faster RT was associated with higher BOLD signal in the most ROIs, while in the ctDCS group, faster RT was mostly associated with lower BOLD signal activity. The sham group exhibited a combination of these associations. We suggest that atDCS accelerates RT by "pushing" the network, while the network response under ctDCS was a "compensatory" response. The polarity of tDCS differentially modulated the adaptive plasticity of remotely connected regions, based on the concept of functional organization of distributed segregated networks.
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.