The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 94 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 59 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improves Executive Dysfunctions in ADHD: Implications for Inhibitory Control, Interference Control, Working Memory, and Cognitive Flexibility
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This study examined effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) on major executive functions (EFs), including response inhibition, executive control, working memory (WM), and cognitive flexibility/task switching in ADHD. Method: ADHD children received (a) left anodal/right cathodal DLPFC tDCS and (b) sham stimulation in Experiment 1 and (a) left anodal DLPFC/right cathodal OFC tDCS, (b) left cathodal DLPFC/right anodal OFC tDCS, and (c) sham stimulation in Experiment 2. The current intensity was 1 mA for 15 min with a 72-hr interval between sessions. Participants underwent Go/No-Go task, N-back test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and Stroop task after each tDCS condition. Results: Anodal left DLPFC tDCS most clearly affected executive control functions (e.g., WM, interference inhibition), while cathodal left DLPFC tDCS improved inhibitory control. Cognitive flexibility/task switching benefited from combined DLPFC-OFC, but not DLPFC stimulation alone. Conclusion: Task-specific stimulation protocols can improve EFs in ADHD.
Checked 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Not checked yet · 23 Own result · 21 Own interpretation · 14 Own method · 3 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“cathodal lDLPFC tDCS improved inhibitory control”
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
“Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test showed that cathodal lDLPFC / anodal rOFC tDCS (montage 2) resulted in a significant increase of No-Go accuracy compared to sham stimulation (p < 0.01; Mmontage2 = 24.2 vs. Msham = 20.7)”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
“These findings support the second hypothesis of the study that cathodal lDLPFC tDCS would improve prepotent response inhibition”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“anodal lDLPFC tDCS most clearly affected executive control functions (e.g., WM, interference inhibition)”
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
“Finally, the respective ANOVA showed a significant improving effect of anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS on interference response inhibition measured by the Stroop task in terms of accuracy (F = 9.01, p < 0.01) and RT (F = 7.7, p < 0.02).”
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
“However, RT was significantly reduced after anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS compared to sham situation (F = 21.01,p < 0.01).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For WM performance, the ANOVA results showed that anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS did not significantly increase the number of accurate responses (F = 0.21, p = 0.65).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The post hoc tests showed that only montage one (anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rOFC tDCS) resulted in a significant increase in accuracy and RT compared to sham stimulation (p < 0.04; Mmontage1 = 21 vs. Msham = 17.9; p < 0.01; Mmontage1 = 103.39 vs. Msham = 162.88).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed no significant differences between tDCS conditions in the Go-No/Go measures of accuracy Go (F = 0.19, p = 0.66), accuracy No-Go (F = 1.02, p = 0.32) and reaction time (F = 2.42, p = 0.14).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the respective ANOVA showed a significant improving effect of anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS on interference response inhibition measured by the Stroop task in terms of accuracy (F = 9.01, p < 0.01) and RT (F = 7.7, p < 0.02).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, we observed a significant effect of stimulation on WCST performance.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, RT was significantly reduced after anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS compared to sham situation (F = 21.01,p < 0.01).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Particularly, results showed that in contrast to experiment one, anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rOFC tDCS (montage 1), cathodal lDLPFC / anodal rOFC tDCS (montage 2) and sham stimulation significantly differed regarding perseverative errors (F = 10.70,p < 0.01) and completed categories (F = 15.67,p < 0.01).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, montage one (anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rOFC tDCS) was significantly superior in increasing accuracy compared to montage two (anodal rOFC / cathodal lDLPFC tDCS) (p < 0.03; Mmontage1 = 21 vs. Mmontage2 = 19.4)”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cognitive flexibility/task switching benefited from combined DLPFC-OFC, but not DLPFC stimulation alone.”
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
“ANOVA results also showed no significant effect of anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS on cognitive flexibility and task-switching measured by the WCST regarding perseverative errors, completed categories and total errors.”
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
“The respective post hoc analyses further showed that montage one (anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rOFC tDCS) (p < 0.01; Mmontage1 = 7.8 vs. Msham = 14.8) and montage two (cathodal lDLPFC / anodal rOFC tDCS) (p < 0.04; Mmontage2 = 11.8 vs. Msham = 14.8) significantly reduced perseverative errors in ADHD children compared to sham stimulation”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the respective repeated measures ANOVAs showed a significant difference between stimulation conditions regarding WM performance in terms of both accuracy (F = 9.84, p < 0.01) and RT (F = 5.89, p < 0.01).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the results of experiment one indicated a significant effect of anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS on performance of the Stroop task and N-back speed but not the WCST and Go-No/Go tasks.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again the first montage was significantly more effective compared to second one (p < 0.01; M montage1 = 5.1 vs. M montage2 = 4.5 4.5).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that left anodal / right cathodal DLPFC tDCS improved both accuracy and RT in the Stroop task.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in the second experiment both accuracy and RT were improved by stimulation”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The stimulation conditions in experiment two, which involved both, DLPFC and OFC, significantly improved performance on these EFs compared to the first experiment, that only involved the DLPFC.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“both tDCS montages (i.e., anodal lDLPFC tDCS/ cathodal rOFC tDCS and cathodal lDLPFC tDCS / anodal rOFC tDCS) significantly improved performance on the WCST in ADHD children compared to sham stimulation”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The dorsoloateral PFC (DLPFC) is the primary region involved in inhibition-based models whereas the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is more closely implicated in motivational dysfunction models (Seidman et al., 2005;Sonuga-Barke, 2005).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seidman et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Sonuga-Barke, 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Impaired EF are among the most pervasive deficits in ADHD, such that ADHD was labelled as an executive dysfunction disorder, whose symptoms are based on a primary deficit in EF (Barkley, 1997;Castellanos & Tannock, 2002;Willcutt, Doyle, Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barkley, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Castellanos & Tannock, 2002
- Not checked yetcites Willcutt et al., 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, other studies proposed impaired inhibitory processes as the core deficit in ADHD that disrupts other EF domains (Barkley, 1997;Nigg, 2001).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barkley, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Nigg, 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The former is thought to be closely associated with DLPFC functions, whereas the latter is assumed to be closely related, but not limited to OFC activity (Rubia, 2011).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rubia, 2011
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, it is suggested that only a subgroup of ADHD children may have executive deficits implicating that more consideration should be given to the probability that only a subset of behaviorally defined children will have a deficit in a given neurocognitive mechanism which can contribute to the disorder (Nigg et al., 2005).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nigg et al., 2005
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Structural imaging studies found smaller prefrontal volumes in ADHD either in the right or left hemisphere (Bush, Valera, & Seidman, 2005)”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bush et al., 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Feasibility and safety of tDCS application in children has been documented in previous studies (Andrade et al., 2013;Krishnan, Santos, Peterson, & Ehinger, 2015).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Andrade et al., 2013
- Not checked yetcites Krishnan et al., 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“tDCS has been shown to improve impaired components of EF not only in ADHD (Soltaninejad, Nejati, & Ekhtiari, 2015a) but also in other disorders accompanied by impaired EF such as depression (Salehinejad et al., 2017) and OCD (Brem, Grünblatt, Drechsler, Riederer, & Walitza, 2014) as well as in healthy populations (Salehinejad, Nejati, & Derakhshan, 2016) depending on the targeted cortical area.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soltaninejad et al., 2015a
- Not checked yetcites Salehinejad et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Brem et al., 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“DLPFC and VLPFC are involved in vigilance, selective and divided attention, attention shifting, planning, executive control, and working memory (Duncan & Owen, 2000;Elliott, 2003) and the OFC is associated with social disinhibition and impulsivity (Rolls, 2004).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duncan & Owen, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Elliott, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Rolls, 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Anodal stimulation increases cortical excitability while cathodal stimulation decreases it at the macroscopic level (Nitsche et al., 2009).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nitsche et al., 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to each stimulation condition.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.2. Experimental Protocol
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This method of sham stimulation has been shown to be reliable (Gandiga, Hummel, & Cohen, 2006).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.3. Procedure
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gandiga et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These findings support the second hypothesis of the study that cathodal lDLPFC tDCS would improve prepotent response inhibition and are in accordance with findings of previous studies showing that decreased activity in the rLPFC is responsible for poor inhibitory control (Aron & Poldrack, 2005;Depue et al., 2010).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aron & Poldrack, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Depue et al., 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mauchly's test was used to evaluate the sphericity of the data before performing the repeated measures ANOVA for each dependent variable.”
- Also stated in: § 2.5. Statistical Analysis · plain
“In case that the assumption of sphericity was violated, the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.5. Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2.5. Statistical Analysis · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, due to smaller head circumference in children, this might also have affected the rDLPFC which is close to the rOFC.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significance level of p < .05 was used for all statistical comparisons and Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test was used for post hoc analysis.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.5. Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This tDCS montage should lead to decreased activity of rDLPFC as a result of cathodal rDLPFC tDCS as well as anodal lDLPFC tDCS, the latter likely reducing activity of the contralateral region through inhibitory transcallosal connections (Mishra, Nizamie, Das, & Praharaj, 2010).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mishra et al., 2010
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both experimenters and data collectors were blind to the study hypothesis.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.2. Experimental Protocol
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hsu et al (2011) showed that anodal tDCS over the pre-supplementary motor area (Pre-SMA) improved inhibitory control, while cathodal tDCS impaired it.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hsu et al., 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a recently published study, we found that cathodal tDCS over the lDLPFC improved inhibitory control in prepotent response inhibition explored by a Go/No-Go task, while anodal tDCS over the same area impaired it (Soltaninejad et al., 2015a).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soltaninejad et al., 2015a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conducted a randomized, double-blinded sham-controlled trial.”
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Experimental Protocol · plain
“The design was a crossover study in which subjects were randomly assigned to a sequence of tDCS treatment.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.2. Experimental Protocol
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Experimental Protocol · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All patients were blind to the type of tDCS delivered in each session.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.3. Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our data met the ANOVA linear assumptions and the Leven's test was used to examine homogeneity of variances.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.5. Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our second experiment showed that cathodal lDLPFC / anodal rOFC tDCS significantly improved accuracy of No-Go responses, likely by indirectly activating the rDLPFC via reduction of transcallosal inhibition.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“both experiments had a relatively low number of participants”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although the total sample size was adequate considering that small sample size has been the case in many studies on ADHD children.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study is also an initial step towards developing clinical treatment of ADHD, especially regarding impaired EFs, by electrically stimulating the DLPFC or OFC.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“improved inhibitory control, which was only observed in the second experiment, could explain why participants' WM was more robustly improved in experiment two.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, it also suggests that the relevance of the interhemispheric balance for task performance is also task-or domain-specific, since an impact of suggested alterations of interhemispheric balance on performance was only observed for response inhibition, but not other EF domains.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a group of healthy control can add to data interpretation in terms of effectiveness of tDCS”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our findings suggest that the effects of activation of PFC regions, especially the DLPFC, are taskspecific and domain-specific, benefiting some but not all the EFs domains in a lateralized way”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“assessment of task performance before and after tDCS provides a better evaluation of tDCS effectiveness.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our design involved only post-stimulation assessment”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“low focality of tDCS limits interpretability of the stimulation effects regarding specific areas.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This also implies that deficits in ADHD are not limited to executive dysfunctions controlled by the DLPFC and are related to DLPFC-OFC interaction rather than imbalanced DLPFC activity marked in other disorders with frontal abnormalities.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A DLPFC-OFC interaction underlies WCST performance.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“tDCS, as a clinical intervention and neuromodulation technique (Brunoni et al., 2012) can enhance cerebral plasticity and could then be used as a tool to increase the developmental potential of children (Holt & Mikati, 2011) especially in neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brunoni et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Holt & Mikati, 2011
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is one of the abilities required to apply new rules in the WCST and might explain why the second montage also improved WCST performance.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: When the rule changes in the WCST, participants need to inhibit the now irrelevant response, which requires inhibition, and apply a new rule, which requires disinhibition.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A DLPFC-OFC interaction underlies WCST performance.
In the paper
“In other words, reduced DLPFC activity that affects both sustained and transient aspects of attentional control in ADHD (Banich et al., 2009) was increased by anodal tDCS, which would lead to regulation of top-down attentional control which is one of the underlying mechanisms of improved scores of performance on the WCST.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Banich et al., 2009
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: When the rule changes in the WCST, participants need to inhibit the now irrelevant response, which requires inhibition, and apply a new rule, which requires disinhibition.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the first experiment sample size only included male ADHD children.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of brain stimulation on impaired executive function domains in ADHD other than inhibitory processes.
“While most of the available brain stimulation studies have focused on inhibitory processes in ADHD, there is lack of evidence about the effectiveness of brain stimulation with regard to other impaired EF domains in ADHD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The way different prefrontal cortex regions contribute to different executive function domains in ADHD is still incompletely understood.
“and the way different PFC regions contribute to different EF domains in ADHD is still incompletely understood.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When the rule changes in the WCST, participants need to inhibit the now irrelevant response, which requires inhibition, and apply a new rule, which requires disinhibition.
“However, when the rule changes, participants need to inhibit the now irrelevant response, which requires inhibition, and to apply a new rule which requires disinhibition.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A DLPFC-OFC interaction underlies WCST performance.
“Regarding the presumed DLPFC-OFC interaction in WCST performance”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Third, the WISC-IV indices might not examine specific aspects of cognition in ADHD and cognitive profile of ADHD subtypes needs to be explored with more specific cognitive measures of executive functions, such as cold vs hot executive functions [63].”
From ADHD subtype-specific cognitive correlates and association with self-esteem: a quantitative difference (2020) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As is to be expected, they found that different regional stimulation protocols benefitted different cognitive tasks.”
From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Nejati et al., 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Anodal tDCS of left DLPFC most clearly affected executive control functions (e.g., WM, interference inhibition in the Stroop task), while cathodal left DLPFC/anodal right OFC tDCS improved inhibitory control in a Go/no-go task.”
From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Nejati et al., 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Cognitive flexibility benefitted from both anodal left DLPFC/cathodal right OFC and cathodal left DLPFC/anodal right OFC combinations, but not from left anodal DLPFC/cathodal right DLPFC stimulation (Nejati et al., 2017).”
From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Nejati et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
“In sum, the results of experiment one indicated a significant effect of anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rDLPFC tDCS on performance of the Stroop task and N-back speed but not the WCST and Go-No/Go tasks.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
“| WCST | Perseverative errors | 1,14 | 1.20 | 0.03 | 0.86 | 0.01 | | | Category completed | 1,14 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.81 | 0.01 | | | Time | 1,14 | 21721.40 | 7.87 | 0.01 | 0.36 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
“RT (F = 7.7, p < 0.02).”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
“| | RT | 1,14 | 16.46 | 7.07 | 0.02 | 0.33 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.5. Statistical Analysis
“stimulation condition (anodal/cathodal in experiment one and anodal/cathodal/sham in experiment two)”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.2. Experimental Protocol
“In experiment one (N = 15) participants received anodal and sham tDCS and in experiment two (N = 10) they received anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 4. Discussion
“One explanation could be opposing effects of cathodal lDLPFC tDCS in experiment one, that could reduce increased activity of the lDLPFC.”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 2.3. Procedure
“The stimulation montages of experiment one were: (a) anodal tDCS over the F3 (lDLPFC) and cathodal tDCS over the F4 (rDLPFC) according to the international EEG 10/20 system; and (b) sham stimulation of the same regions.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
“The post hoc tests showed that only montage one (anodal lDLPFC / cathodal rOFC tDCS) resulted in a significant increase in accuracy and RT compared to sham stimulation”
§ Transcranial direct current stimulation improves executive dysfunctions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for inhibitory control, interference control, working memory and cognitive flexibility > 3. Results
“p < 0.01; Mmontage1 = 103.39 vs. Msham = 162.88”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006 · Cited by 3,568
N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20131 · Cited by 3,560
Executive functions and developmental psychopathology.
Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01380.x · Cited by 3,150 · cited 1×
“Failure of executive control underlies many psychiatric and neurological disorders and has been specifically shown in developmental psychopathologies, especially in ADHD (Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996).”
BackgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008
Nitsche, M. A., Cohen, L. G., Wassermann, E. M., Priori, A., Lang, N., Antal, A., Paulus, W., Hummel, F., Boggio, P. S., Fregni, F., et al. (2008) · Brain Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004 · Cited by 3,057
Self-citationCommon regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands
Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2000) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01633-7 · Cited by 2,498
Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language
Carr, T. H., & Dagenbach, D. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,276
Neuroscience of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the search for endophenotypes
Castellanos, F. X., & Tannock, R. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn896 · Cited by 1,827 · cited 1×
“EFs deficits are among the most pervasive deficits in ADHD, such that ADHD was labeled as an executive dysfunction disorder, whose symptoms are based on a primary deficit in EFs (Barkley, 1997; Castellanos & Tannock, 2002; Willcutt, Doyle, Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005).”
BackgroundGandiga, P. C., Hummel, F. C., & Cohen, L. G. (2006) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003 · Cited by 1,474
Brunoni, A. R., Nitsche, M. A., Bolognini, N., Bikson, M., Wagner, T., Merabet, L., Edwards, D. J., Valero-Cabre, A., Rotenberg, A., Pascual-Leone, A., et al. (2012) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002 · Cited by 1,445
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Hasher L., 2006, Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change, 162
- Schneider W., 2002, E-Prime: User’s guide
- Swanson J., 1992, The SNAP-IV Rating Scale
- Swanson J. M., 2012, The International journal of educational and psychological assessment, 10, 51
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rubia, K. (2018) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00100 · Cited by 384
“Cognitive flexibility benefitted from both anodal left DLPFC/cathodal right OFC and cathodal left DLPFC/anodal right OFC combinations, but not from left anodal DLPFC/cathodal right DLPFC stimulation (Nejati et al., 2017).”
BackgroundNejati, V., Salehinejad, M. A., & Nitsche, M. A. (2018) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.10.042 · Cited by 243
Self-citationTranscranial direct current brain stimulation decreases impulsivity in ADHD
Allenby, C. E., Falcone, M., Bernardo, L., Wileyto, E. P., Rostain, A. L., Ramsay, J. R., Lerman, C. E., & Loughead, J. (2018) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.04.016 · Cited by 140
Alizadehgoradel, J., Nejati, V., Movahed, F. S., Imani, S., Taherifard, M., Mosayebi-Samani, M., Vicario, C. M., Nitsche, M. A., & Salehinejad, M. A. (2020) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2019.12.028 · Cited by 129
Self-citationSalehinejad, M. A., Wischnewski, M., Nejati, V., Vicario, C. M., & Nitsche, M. A. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215095 · Cited by 126
“First, preliminary data suggest beneficial effects of tDCS on other cognitive dysfunctions in ADHD including cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, selective attention, and hyperactivity symptoms involved in ADHS [6, 70, 109].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Nejati, V., Salehinejad, M. A., Nitsche, M. A., Najian, A., & Javadi, A.-H.
- Affiliations
- Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
- Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (DE)
- BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum (DE)
- University of Kent (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Nejati, Vahid
- Venue
- Journal of Attention Disorders
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-09-22
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1928-1943
- ISSN
- 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1246
- OpenAlex
- W2759792736
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 5.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- kar.kent.ac.uk
- Locations
- Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- 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, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, executive function, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, inhibitory control, interference control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, task switching, children, go/no-go task, n-back task, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Stroop task
- MeSH terms
- Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Prefrontal Cortex, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
