Trial reportBMC geriatrics2026
A comparative investigation of transcranial pulsed and direct current stimulation on motor learning and brain oscillation patterns in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-related declines in motor performance are associated with reduced cortical excitability and impaired neuroplasticity. Noninvasive transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) can improve motor learning, but the comparative efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a‑tDCS) and anodal transcranial pulsed current stimulation (a‑tPCS) in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects of a-tDCS and a-tPCS on motor learning and cortical activity in older adults with MCI.
methodsThirty‑nine older adults (age 60-75 years; Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) 18-23) were randomized to a‑tPCS (n = 13), a‑tDCS (n = 13), or sham (n = 13). Stimulation (2 mA, 20 min) was applied over left M1 during five daily sessions of a Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT). Behavioral outcomes were reaction time (RT) and error rate (ER). Electroencephalography (EEG) absolute and relative spectral power (theta, alpha, beta), magnitude‑squared coherence (MSC), and imaginary coherence (ICoh) between C3-C4 were measured at baseline, after five intervention sessions, and at two‑week follow‑up.
resultsBoth a-tPCS and a-tDCS significantly increased alpha and theta spectral power, increased MSC, decreased ICoh, and reduced RT and ER relative to sham (p < .001). a-tPCS produced significantly greater initial changes than a-tDCS in absolute alpha power, relative theta power, alpha and theta MSC, and RT (p < .001). At follow-up, a-tPCS maintained significant changes compared to sham in absolute alpha power, absolute theta power, alpha MSC, and RT (p < .001). In contrast, the effects of a-tDCS showed notable decline over time, with only modest lasting benefits primarily observed in absolute theta and alpha power and beta MSC.
conclusionsBoth techniques facilitate motor learning in older adults with MCI, but a‑tPCS caused stronger and more enduring neurophysiological and behavioral effects in this sample.
trial registrationThe protocol of this trial was registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (registration number: IRCT20151228025732N79; July 30, 2023) available at https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/search/result?query=IRCT20151228025732N79 .
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.