Cited by 319Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on cognition

Open access
Kuo, Min-Fang, Nitsche, Michael A.·2012·Clinical EEG and Neuroscience

Abstract

Alterations of cortical excitability, oscillatory as well as non-oscillatory, are physiological derivates of cognitive processes, such as perception, working memory, learning, and long-term memory formation. Since noninvasive electrical brain stimulation is capable of inducing alterations in the human brain, these stimulation approaches might be attractive tools to modulate cognition. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) alters spontaneous cortical activity, while transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) are presumed to induce or interfere with oscillations of cortical networks. Via these mechanisms, the respective stimulation techniques have indeed been shown to modulate cognitive processes in a multitude of studies conducted during the last years. In this review, we will gather knowledge about the potential of noninvasive electrical brain stimulation to study and modify cognitive processes in healthy humans and discuss directions of future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1550059412444975

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • tDCS over cortical areas that mediate the cognitive function of interest combined with cognitive training of that specific function can improve task performance.

    “tDCS over cortical areas that mediate the cognitive function of interest combined with cognitive training of that specific function can improve task performance (Kuo and Nitsche, 2012)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuo, M.-F., & Nitsche, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Nitsche, Michael A.
Venue
Clinical EEG and Neuroscience
Published
2012-07
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
192-199
ISSN
  • 1550-0594 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-5202
OpenAlex
W1994130335
Cited by
319
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 22
FWCI
12.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Clinical EEG and Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial alternating current stimulation, transcranial random noise stimulation, non-invasive brain stimulation, cognitive modulation, cortical excitability, cortical oscillations, working memory, learning, long-term memory, perception
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Brain, Cognition, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Nerve Net, Neuronal Plasticity, Transcranial Magnetic 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