Trial reportCerebellum (London, England)2026
The Effect of Cerebellar tDCS On Inhibitory Control in Healthy Adults: Exploring Trait Moderation.
Trial report in Cerebellum (London, England), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) research on inhibitory control (IC) has largely focused on prefrontal targets, with inconsistent results, while the cerebellum's contribution to executive control networks remains underexplored. This study examines whether cerebellar anodal tDCS modulates IC in healthy adults, using both proactive (Go/No-Go) and reactive (Stop Signal) inhibition measures, and explores whether dispositional traits moderate stimulation effects. In a double-blind, sham-controlled, within-subjects design, 40 participants received active and sham cerebellar tDCS (2 mA, 20 min, anodal, left cerebellum) across two sessions. IC was assessed via reaction time and No-Go accuracy on the Go/No-Go task and Stop Signal Reaction Time (SSRT) on the Stop Signal Task. Exploratory analyses tested whether trait impulsivity, effortful control, and behavioral inhibition/approach tendencies (BIS/BAS) moderated stimulation effects. Stimulation did not appear to affect Go/No-Go reaction time, No-Go accuracy, or SSRT. Exploratory analyses revealed a mixed pattern of trait-dependent effects: active stimulation amplified pre-existing associations between dispositional traits and Go/No-Go responding, with higher trait impulsivity linked to faster responding and higher effortful control linked to slower responding. Reward sensitivity (Behavioral Approach Scale) showed no association under sham but predicted both faster responding and reduced No-Go accuracy under active stimulation. Left anodal cerebellar tDCS produced no group-level enhancement of IC. However, exploratory analyses suggested that individual differences may shape responsiveness to stimulation. Future research with larger, trait-stratified samples is needed to confirm these patterns and clarify whether cerebellar tDCS selectively benefits specific subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848160What 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.