Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41282835›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

Does anodal tDCS over M1 really enhance motor sequence learning? A non-replication of earlier findings in a double-blind, pre-registered large-sample study in humans.

Silke Kerstens, Luuk van Boekholdt, Hans Vanderheyden, Louise De Smedt, Nina Seminck, Tine Van Bogaert, Genevieve Albouy, Bradley R King, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Myles Mc Laughlin

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Luuk van BoekholdtORCID 0000-0001-5809-8379
Hans VanderheydenORCID 0009-0008-1923-9966
Louise De Smedt
Jean-Jacques Orban de XivryORCID 0000-0002-4603-7939
Myles Mc LaughlinORCID 0000-0001-8574-1841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is one of the most widely used noninvasive neuromodulation methods. Despite its popularity, some recent studies highlighted issues about the reproducibility of earlier reported tDCS results. Until recently, it was assumed that tDCS elicits its neuromodulatory effects by increasing cortical excitability through direct polarization of cortical neurons. However, recent studies have shown that the electric field that reaches the cortex is relatively weak, whereas the electric field in the scalp underneath the stimulation electrodes is sufficiently strong to stimulate peripheral nerves, thereby potentially indirectly affecting cortical excitability and plasticity. Objective: In this study, we aimed to replicate the effect of anodal tDCS in enhancing motor sequence learning and investigate if the effect is caused by the polarization of cortical neurons, or more indirectly through stimulation of peripheral nerve in the scalp, or a combination of both mechanisms. Methods: In a double-blind, pre-registered study including 99 healthy young adults, we investigated the effect of 1mA anodal tDCS over the left primary motor cortex (M1) on motor sequence learning in three serial reaction time task (SRTT) sessions using a between-subjects design. In addition to the standard sham condition, we introduced an additional control condition in which the peripheral input was blocked using the BL10 topical anesthetic gel to investigate the potential contribution of peripheral nerve stimulation in mediating tDCS effects in motor sequence learning. Results: Our results provided evidence of motor sequence learning in all three stimulation conditions (p<0.0001). However, no significant differences were observed among the three stimulation conditions (p = 0.94). Conclusion: We were unable to replicate previous findings indicating significant beneficial effects of tDCS on motor sequence learning. Consequently, we were unable to address our main research question of whether tDCS effects are driven by the resulting electric field in the cortex or by stimulation of peripheral nerves in the scalp. This non-replication of one of the presumably most reliable tDCS effects in a much larger sample size than the original studies, among the findings of comparable studies reporting similar outcomes, should prompt a renewed discussion regarding the efficacy of tDCS as a neuromodulation technique, particularly given the earlier reported concerns about its reproducibility and reliability.

Identifiers

PMID41282835
PMCPMC12632644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.