SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Transcutaneous and transcranial electrical stimulation for enhancing military performance: an update and systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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.
- Article
- Military applications of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for enhanced multitasking performance.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Electrical stimulation (ES), including transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS), has shown potential for cognitive enhancement in military contexts. Various types of ES, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), modulate neuronal membrane potentials and cortical excitability, potentially improving cognitive functions relevant to military training and operations. Methods: This systematic review updates previous findings by examining studies published between 2019 and 2024 that investigated electrical stimulation effects on cognitive performance in military personnel and tasks. We focused on whether the studies addressed key questions about the generalizability of lab findings to military tasks, the frequency and intensity of adverse effects, the impact of repeated ES administration, and the ethical and regulatory considerations for its use in potentially vulnerable military populations. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria; most demonstrated overall low to some concerns, however, two of these had overall high risk of bias. While tES and tVNS showed some promise for enhancing multitasking and visual search performance, the results were mixed, with no reliable effects on vigilance tasks. Discussion: The reviewed studies highlight the need for a better understanding of ES mechanisms, optimal stimulation parameters, and individual differences in response to ES. They also highlight the importance of conducting high-powered research in military settings to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and ethical implications of ES. Future research should address the generalizability of lab-based results to real-world military tasks, monitor the frequency and intensity of adverse effects, and explore the long-term impacts of repeated administration. Furthermore, ethical and regulatory considerations are crucial for the responsible application of ES in military contexts, and a series of outstanding questions is posed to guide continuing research in this domain.
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.