Cited by 98Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Improving interference control in ADHD patients with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

Open access

Abstract

The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested as a promising alternative to psychopharmacological treatment approaches due to its local and network effects on brain activation. In the current study, we investigated the impact of tDCS over the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) on interference control in 21 male adolescents with ADHD and 21 age matched healthy controls aged 13-17 years, who underwent three separate sessions of tDCS (anodal, cathodal, and sham) while completing a Flanker task. Even though anodal stimulation appeared to diminish commission errors in the ADHD group, the overall analysis revealed no significant effect of tDCS. Since participants showed a considerable learning effect from the first to the second session, performance in the first session was separately analyzed. ADHD patients receiving sham stimulation in the first session showed impaired interference control compared to healthy control participants whereas ADHD patients who were exposed to anodal stimulation, showed comparable performance levels (commission errors, reaction time variability) to the control group. These results suggest that anodal tDCS of the right inferior frontal gyrus could improve interference control in patients with ADHD.

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 · 10.3389/fncel.2016.00072

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A randomized sham-controlled cross-over study found that 21 ADHD adolescents showed significantly reduced commission errors and response variability after anodal tDCS of right IFC, normalized compared to controls.

    “a randomized sham-controlled cross-over study combining one session of 15 min of 1.5 mA over right IFC in anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS with performance on a Flanker interference inhibition task found that 21 ADHD adolescents showed significantly reduced commission errors and response variability after the anodal tDCS of rIFC, which was normalized compared to controls (Breitling et al., 2016).”

    From Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Its Clinical Translation (2018) · cites this paper as Breitling et al., 2016

    The Results report significantly fewer commission errors and less reaction-time variability with anodal than sham stimulation, with performance comparable to controls, but only in an exploratory analysis of participants’ first sessions (seven ADHD adolescents per condition); the overall analysis found no significant tDCS effect. The Methods describe pseudo-randomized, counterbalanced stimulation at 1 mA for 20 minutes, including 15 minutes during the Flanker task—not 1.5 mA for 15 minutes. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The analysis of the Breitling et al. study focused only on the first session due to learning effects, limiting power to seven subjects per group.

    “However, given that there were learning effects, the analysis focused only on the first session which limited the power of the analysis to seven subjects in each group (Breitling et al., 2016).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Breitling, C., Zaehle, T., Dannhauer, M., Bonath, B., Tegelbeckers, J., Flechtner, H.-H., & Krauel, K.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Magdeburg (DE)
  • Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Breitling, Carolin
Venue
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
Published
2016-03-22
Volume
10
Pages
72-72
ISSN
1662-5102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2313090288
Cited by
98
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (TPA03, SFB 779, TP A03, SFB 779)
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, interference control, right inferior frontal gyrus, adolescents, flanker task, anodal stimulation, cathodal stimulation, sham stimulation, commission errors, reaction time variability, non-pharmacological treatment

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