ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2023
Failure of tDCS to impact militarised threat-detection in a military cohort.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcutaneous and transcranial electrical stimulation for enhancing military performance: an update and systematic review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, has become a focus of military organisations due to its reported positive effects on cognitive and motor performance. However, the majority of tDCS research in this space is conducted with civilian participants and/or uses abstract tasks. Additionally, of the small subset of studies that have used military participants or military-relevant tasks, few have employed both, and none with a considerable sample size. Here, we extend on previous work by exploring whether tDCS to the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) enhances the performance of a large military cohort during a militaristic threat-detection task. 98 participants aged between 18 and 45 were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) 2 mA anodal tDCS to the rIFG; (2) Sham stimulation to the rIFG; or (3) 2 mA anodal tDCS to the visual cortex (V1). Participants viewed serially presented, virtually generated militaristic images, and responded Yes/No via keypress to a threat being present. tDCS was applied for 25 min during the first two training blocks of the 50 min task. Results showed evidence for the null hypothesis: tDCS did not influence mean accuracy or reaction time across the task, in contrast to previous work. We discuss possible methodological and population factors that may explain why previously published effects of tDCS were not reproduced.
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.