Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41018017›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2025

Optimising transcranial direct current stimulation application for the enhancement of exercise performance: a review.

Aidan Lewis, Ben Rattray, Andrew Flood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Aidan LewisDiscipline of Psychology, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Ben RattrayDiscipline of Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Andrew FloodDiscipline of Psychology, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown potential in enhancing performance across a range of exercise types. However, the variability in its effectiveness suggests that outcomes may be contingent on how stimulation is applied. This review evaluates the current evidence surrounding the optimisation of tDCS for performance enhancement, focusing on individual stimulation parameters; timing, intensity, current density, montage, and electrode configuration, and their interactions. We highlight how modifications in these dose components can produce non-linear and sometimes paradoxical effects on corticospinal excitability, the primary mechanistic rationale proposed for tDCS-related performance gains. Evidence suggests that online vs offline stimulation, session duration, dual-dosing protocols, and extracephalic or high-definition montages can all substantially influence psychophysiological outcomes, though findings remain inconsistent. Through the review, we identify significant gaps in comparative data and cautions against assumptions that increased stimulation intensity or duration equates to improved performance. We critique the reliance on outdated methodologies including the use the 10-20 EEG system, and conclude by providing practical recommendations for future research, calling for systematic investigations of dose interactions, protocol standardisation, and direct comparisons of novel and established tDCS methods. These steps are necessary to utilise tDCS to its full potential in the context of exercise performance.

Indexed as

enhancementexerciseoptimisingreviewtDCS

Identifiers

PMID41018017
PMCPMC12460327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.