ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2021
Individualization of tDCS intensity according to corticospinal excitability does not improve stimulation efficacy over the primary motor cortex.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-invasive brain stimulation for improving gait, balance, and lower limbs motor function in stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Frontal two-electrode transcranial direct current stimulation protocols may not affect performance on a combined flanker Go/No-Go task.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Sex Does Matter! The Influence of Sex on Outcomes of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).Cells · 2026Review
- Non-linear dose response effect of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on muscle strength in young healthy adults: a randomized controlled study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2023Article
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
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied at the same intensity for an entire group of people results in wide interindividual variability, limiting stimulation efficacy. Evidence suggests that tDCS efficacy might be linked to individual corticospinal excitability (CSE) levels measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, no study has attempted to individualize tDCS parameters according to the CSE level. We aimed to investigate whether the tDCS effect could be improved by individualizing stimulation intensity based on CSE measured at baseline. Fourteen participants were included in a crossover single-blinded design study where anodal (1 mA), individualized anodal (between 0.9 and 1.6 mA) and sham tDCS were applied for 14 min over the primary motor cortex. The resting motor threshold (RMT), stimulus intensity for a 1 mV response (SI1mV) and the input-output curve (I-O curve) were measured before, immediately after, 15 after and 30 min after tDCS using single pulses of TMS. The tDCS intensity in the individualized anodal condition was determined according to the RMT value at baseline (i.e., CSE level). RMT, SI1mV and I-O curve MEPs did not change after any tDCS paradigm. Our results are consistent with previous investigations that did not show an effect of tDCS on CSE and supports that tDCS protocols suffer from large interindividual variability and a lack of efficiency. This calls for further investigations to find the optimal tDCS setting to reduce the inconsistency in the results and obtain reproducible effects.
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.