Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40881935›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

Effects of repeated cranial electrotherapy stimulation on physiological and behavioral responses to acute stress: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

Kana Okano, Marissa Marko Lee, Hannah Hart-Pomerantz, Marisa Smith, Madelyn K Sandone, Travis Harvey, Tad T Brunyé

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT06034496 (Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06034496 nacompletednot on this map

Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES) Influences on Acute Stress Responses

TypeinterventionalSponsorTufts UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled76ConditionsAnxiety StateArmsActive CES, Sham CES
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

Kana OkanoCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Marissa Marko LeeCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Hannah Hart-PomerantzCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Marisa SmithCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Madelyn K SandoneCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Travis HarveyTeamworks Innovations Inc., Durham, NC, United States.
Tad T BrunyéCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a low-intensity, pulsed neuromodulation technique widely marketed for reducing stress and anxiety. Despite its popularity, empirical evidence for its efficacy remains mixed, with few studies employing rigorous controls, standardized protocols, and repeated CES exposures. Objective: To evaluate whether repeated CES sessions can attenuate physiological, biochemical, cognitive, and affective responses to an acute laboratory stressor. Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 46 healthy participants (27 military personnel, 19 civilians). Participants were randomized to receive either active CES (250-500 μA at 0.5Hz, individualized intensity) or sham stimulation for 20 sessions over approximately four weeks. At baseline and follow-up visits, participants underwent acute stress induction using torso shock; measures included physiological (heart rate, heart rate variability, respiration rate, pupil diameter), biochemical (salivary alpha-amylase, cortisol), cognitive (spatial orientation, recognition memory, decision-making), and affective (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) indices. Results: Stress induction reliably elevated sympathetic-adrenal medulla (SAM) and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) markers as well as subjective anxiety. However, across nearly all outcomes, active CES did not differ significantly from sham, nor were there interactions with session (baseline vs. follow-up). No meaningful group differences were observed in stress recovery, self-reported anxiety, or stress-related cognitive performance. Conclusions: These predominantly null findings challenge prevailing mechanistic accounts of CES and suggest limited efficacy in buffering acute stress responses in healthy, neurotypical individuals. Further controlled trials are needed to explore alternative parameters, populations, and neurophysiological endpoints to better understand CES's therapeutic potential. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT06034496.

Indexed as

affectclinical trialcognitioncranial electrotherapy stimulationphysiologystress

Identifiers

PMID40881935
PMCPMC12380913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.