ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Comparing the effect of transcranial random noise stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex on motor performance in men vs. women: a randomized controlled crossover study.
Article 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.
- Sex Does Matter! The Influence of Sex on Outcomes of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).Cells · 2026Review
- Simultaneous tDCS-fMRI reveals limited and inconsistent changes in functional connectivity: Insights from a temporal dynamics study.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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
Non-invasive Brain Stimulation may modulate motor function. One commonly investigated method is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). In the last few years, a new stimulation technique has been developed and studied, namely transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS). Both stimulation techniques have displayed a certain degree of inconsistency regarding their impact on motor performance. One explanation for this may be related to differences in the sex of the participants. Thirty healthy individuals (15 female) participated in a single-blind counterbalanced crossover trial. All participants received three stimulation conditions: high frequency-tRNS, tDCS, and sham stimulation. Stimulation was applied for 10 min at 1.0 mA, with a frequency range of 101-640 Hz for the tRNS. In all stimulation conditions, the anode (for tDCS) was placed over C4 and the cathode over the contralateral orbit. The participants performed a sequential reaching motor task on a digital tablet before, during, and immediately after the stimulation. Movement time, reaction time, and peak velocity did not differ between stimulation conditions. However, within-condition analyses showed improvements in movement time and peak velocity following tRNS only, while reaction time improved in all stimulation conditions. No significant effect of sex was observed. While no clear advantage for a specific stimulation condition was statistically confirmed, these within-condition effects suggest that tRNS may modestly enhance motor performance and warrant further investigation. Additionally, in this experimental setup, sex did not influence the effects of tRNS and tDCS on motor performance.
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.