Trial reportThe Journal of physiology2026
Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances delayed retention after 5 days of lower-limb motor skill learning.
Trial report in The Journal of physiology, 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
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) holds the potential to affect behaviour by modulating ongoing neural activity, and tDCS paired with hand motor practice can enhance motor learning. While augmenting the behavioural benefits of motor practice is relevant for neurorehabilitation following central and peripheral lesions to the motor system, as well as in sports, the effects of tDCS targeting the mesial motor cortex (M1-Leg) during multi-session lower-limb motor skill practice remain unexplored. We tested whether 5 days of anodal tDCS over M1-Leg during training of a sequential visuomotor tracking task improves within- and between-session learning and 1-week retention. Participants were randomized to skill practice with active tDCS, skill practice with sham stimulation, or volume-matched non-skilled ankle movements with sham stimulation. Changes in corticospinal excitability accompanying skill and non-skill motor practice with real and sham tDCS, were assessed as motor-evoked potential amplitudes recorded from the tibialis anterior muscle at rest. Compared with non-skill practice, motor skill practice yielded robust sequence-specific performance gains that transferred to the untrained leg and persisted for at least 1 week after practice ended. Concurrent tDCS did not increase learning within or between training sessions, but it did lead to improved one-week retention compared with sham stimulation. Corticospinal excitability did not increase after practice and was unaffected by tDCS. These findings suggest that combining lower-limb motor skill practice with tDCS over the M1-Leg can enhance retention of skill learning without measurable changes in resting corticospinal excitability. This is relevant for motor practice scheduling and potentially in neurorehabilitation. KEY POINTS: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a weak electrical brain stimulation that may boost learning when paired with motor practice; however, its effects during lower-limb skill training are not well known. We tested whether stimulation over the leg area of the motor cortex during 5 days of ankle skill training improves learning, consolidation and delayed retention. Ankle skill training produced clear sequence-specific improvements that transferred to the untrained leg and were still present 1 week later. Stimulation did not increase short-term learning, but it did improve 1-week retention compared with sham stimulation. Corticospinal excitability did not change with motor training or stimulation, consistent with the possibility that the observed retention effect relies on mechanisms that do not evoke sustained changes in resting corticospinal excitability (e.g. state-dependent or network-level processes).
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.