Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40799688›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2023

Failure of tDCS to impact militarised threat-detection in a military cohort.

Nicholas S Willmot, Li-Ann Leow, Hannah L Filmer, Paul E Dux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicholas S WillmotDepartment of Defence, Edinburgh, Australia.
Li-Ann LeowSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Hannah L FilmerSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Paul E DuxSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cognitive performancemilitaryprefrontal cortextDCSvisual search

Identifiers

PMID40799688
PMCPMC12007556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.