Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Findings From Healthy and Neuropsychiatric Populations

Open access
Hill, Aron T., Fitzgerald, Paul B., Hoy, Kate E.·2016·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND Several studies have trialled anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) for the enhancement of working memory (WM) in both healthy and neuropsychiatric populations. However, the efficacy of this technique remains to be clearly established. OBJECTIVE This review provides a quantitative synthesis of the published literature investigating the effects of a-tDCS, compared to sham, on WM, as assessed using the n-back, Sternberg and digit-span tasks. We also separated results from tasks performed 'online' (during stimulation) and 'offline' (following stimulation). The secondary aim was to assess for any additional effects of current density and stimulation duration. METHODS Comprehensive literature searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CENTRAL and Scopus from July 1998 to June 2014. RESULTS In healthy cohorts, a-tDCS produced a trend towards improvement for offline WM accuracy (p = 0.05) and a small, but significant improvement in reaction time (p = 0.04); however, no significant effects were observed for online tasks (accuracy [p = 0.29], reaction time [p = 0.42]). In the neuropsychiatric cohort, a-tDCS significantly improved accuracy for online (p = 0.003), but not offline (p = 0.87) tasks, and no effect was seen for either online (p = 0.20) or offline (p = 0.49) reaction times. Secondary analyses controlling for current density and stimulation duration provided limited support for the role of these factors in influencing a-tDCS efficacy. CONCLUSIONS This review provides some evidence of a beneficial effect of a-tDCS on WM performance. However, the small effect sizes obtained, coupled with non-significant effects on several analyses require cautious interpretation and highlight the need for future research aimed at investigating more optimised stimulation approaches.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brs.2015.10.006

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 91 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Hill, A. T., Fitzgerald, P. B., & Hoy, K. E.
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
197-208
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W2104177392
Cited by
422
References
91
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Findings From Healthy and Neuropsychiatric Populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.brs.2015.10.006
The paper
Hill, A. T., Fitzgerald, P. B., & Hoy, K. E. (2016). Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Findings From Healthy and Neuropsychiatric Populations. Brain Stimulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.10.006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.