Trial reportPhysiological reports2025
The use of transcranial direct current stimulation to facilitate motor skill reactivations of a choice reaction time task in adults.
Trial report in Physiological reports, 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.
- The use of transcranial direct current stimulation to facilitate motor skill reactivations of a choice reaction time task in adults.Physiological reports · 2025Trial
- M1 a-tDCS does not acutely enhance motor skill acquisition of a dexterous, timing-based videogame task in adults.Physiological reports · 2026Article
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
Motor skill acquisition involves fast and slow learning phases, typically requiring extended practice. This study explored whether brief reactivations of a choice reaction time (CRT) task, combined with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1), could yield performance improvements comparable to full-length practice. A total of 120 healthy adults were randomized into six groups varying in tDCS use (2 mA for 5 or 20 min) and practice duration (5 or 20 min). Reaction time (RT) and error rate were assessed across sessions. Across all groups, RT significantly improved from 423.5 ± 116.8 ms at pre-test to 357.9 ± 63.4 ms post-test (p < 0.001), of the first session. RTs at session 4 (377.8 ± 66.2 ms) remained significantly faster than baseline (p < 0.001), though slightly slower than immediate post-test in session 1 (p = 0.172). No significant between-group differences emerged in RT or error rate, though the brief reactivation + tDCS group achieved RTs similar to the full-practice group. When separated by sex, women showed slower reaction times initially and less improvement in reaction times with practice. These results suggest that brief, tDCS-enhanced reactivations can preserve behavioral improvements in learning, though their neurophysiological effects remain inconclusive.
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.