Cited by 133Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

EFfect of anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on DLPFC on modulation of inhibitory control in ADHD

Soltaninejad, Zahra, Nejati, Vahid, Ekhtiari, Hamed·2019·Journal of Attention Disorders

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to improve the inhibitory control functions through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in adolescents with ADHD symptoms. Method: Twenty high school students with ADHD symptoms participated in this single-blinded, crossover, sham-controlled study. All the participants were tested during the application of Stroop and Go/No-Go tasks that is used to measure inhibitory control, using 1.5 mA of tDCS for 15 min over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Results: Anodal stimulation on left DLPFC had no effect on interference inhibition during the Stroop task and increased the proportion of correct responses in the “Go stage” of the Go/No-Go test compared with sham condition. Cathodal stimulation on the left DLPFC increased the inhibition accuracy in the inhibition stage during Go/No-Go task in comparison with sham. Conclusion: tDCS over the left DLPFC of adolescents who suffer from ADHD symptoms can improve inhibitory control in prepotent response inhibition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1087054715618792

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • mA of left DLPFC improved inhibitory performance in a Go/no-go task, while anodal stimulation of left DLPFC improved the go process, compared with each other and sham.

    “mA of left DLPFC improved inhibitory performance in a gonogo task, while anodal stimulation of left DLPFC improved the go process of the task, both compared against each other and against sham stimulation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soltaninejad, Z., Nejati, V., & Ekhtiari, H.
Affiliations
  • Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
  • Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (IR)
Corresponding author
Nejati, Vahid
Venue
Journal of Attention Disorders
Published
2015-12-20
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
325-332
ISSN
  • 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1246
OpenAlex
W2407827039
Cited by
133
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, anodal stimulation, cathodal stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inhibitory control, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adolescents, Stroop task, go/no-go task, prepotent response inhibition, non-invasive brain stimulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Prefrontal Cortex, Cross-Over Studies, Stroop Test, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

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