Trial reportBrain and behavior2026
Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation at the Individual Alpha Frequency Shows Potential Value in Improving Working Memory in Healthy Participants.
Trial report in Brain and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo clarify the promoting effect of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) at the individual alpha frequency (IAF) of the left posterior parietal cortex (PPC) on working memory (WM) using combined behavioral and electroencephalography (EEG) detection techniques.
methodsThis study is a single-blind, randomized, crossover, controlled trial with three groups: the IAF group, the IAF-1 group, and the sham group. WM was assessed using the n-back task, while EEG signals were simultaneously collected. Behavioral and EEG-related indicators pre and post stimulation were compared.
resultsCompared with pre-stimulation, the average reaction time (RT) in the n-back task significantly decreased (p < 0.001) and the d' value significantly increased (p < 001) in all participants post-stimulation. No significant local or whole-brain statistical differences in event-related desynchronization/synchronization(ERS/ERD) were found post-stimulation. However, event-related potential (ERP) analysis showed that the P200 amplitude (Fz: p = 0.023, F3: p = 0.017) and P300 amplitude (Fz: p = 0.009, Cz: p = 0.025) in the 3-back task of the IAF group significantly increased after stimulation. In the IAF group, a significant negative correlation was found between ΔP300 and ΔRT (Fz: r = -0.465, p = 0.039; Cz: r = -0.677, p = 0.001). No significant correlation was found between IAF amplitude and behavioral changes (ΔRT and Δd) or ERP changes (ΔP200 and ΔP300) (p > 0.05). No significant correlations were found in the IAF-1 group or the sham group (p > 0.05).
conclusionIAF-tACS specially improved the high-load WM performance in healthy participants through increased P300 amplitude in the frontocentral region, which provides a brand-new strategy for precise regulation in the future. Further research are needed to confirm its clinical application.
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.