CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hits and misses: leveraging tDCS to advance cognitive research

Open access
Berryhill, Marian E.·2014·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00800PMC PMC4111100
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The popularity of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in basic, commercial, and applied settings grew tremendously over the last decade. Here, we focus on one popular neurostimulation method: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Many assumptions regarding the outcomes of tDCS are based on the results of stimulating motor cortex. For instance, the primary motor cortex is predictably suppressed by cathodal tDCS or made more excitable by anodal tDCS. However, wide-ranging studies testing cognition provide more complex and sometimes paradoxical results that challenge this heuristic. Here, we first summarize successful efforts in applying tDCS to cognitive questions, with a focus on working memory (WM). These recent findings indicate that tDCS can result in cognitive task improvement or impairment regardless of stimulation site or direction of current flow. We then report WM and response inhibition studies that failed to replicate and/or extend previously reported effects. From these opposing outcomes, we present a series of factors to consider that are intended to facilitate future use of tDCS when applied to cognitive questions. In short, common pitfalls include testing too few participants, using insufficiently challenging tasks, using heterogeneous participant populations, and including poorly motivated participants. Furthermore, the poorly understood underlying mechanism for long-lasting tDCS effects make it likely that other important factors predict responses. In conclusion, we argue that although tDCS can be used experimentally to understand brain function its greatest potential may be in applied or translational research.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00800

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experiment 1 task design. After 10 min of sham or 1.0 mA anodal tDCS to the right PPC (P4), the experimental task began. Participants viewed three types of arrays: 2 items (2-ungrouped), 3 items in two boxes (3-grouped), or 3 items in three boxes (3-ungrouped). After a WM delay period (1000 ms), a single probe item appeared and participants indicated whether that stimulus had previously appeared in that location.
Figure 1 Experiment 1 task design. After 10 min of sham or 1.0 mA anodal tDCS to the right PPC (P4), the experimental task began. Participants viewed three types of arrays: 2 items (2-ungrouped), 3 items in two boxes (3-grouped), or 3 items in three boxes (3-ungrouped). After a WM delay period (1000 ms), a single probe item appeared and participants indicated whether that stimulus had previously appeared in that location.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 VWM performance in Experiment 1. The three experimental conditions are displayed along the abscissa, while estimated capacity (based on Cowan's K formula, 2001) is depicted along the ordinate. The error bars represent the standard errors of the means in each condition for each tDCS session.
Figure 2 VWM performance in Experiment 1. The three experimental conditions are displayed along the abscissa, while estimated capacity (based on Cowan's K formula, 2001) is depicted along the ordinate. The error bars represent the standard errors of the means in each condition for each tDCS session.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Experiment 2 performance per task as a function of tDCS condition and ADHD symptomology: (A) Go/No-Go, (B) OSPAN, and (C) Spatial 2-back task. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Figure 3 Experiment 2 performance per task as a function of tDCS condition and ADHD symptomology: (A) Go/No-Go, (B) OSPAN, and (C) Spatial 2-back task. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wertheimer M. (1950). Gestalt theory, in A Sourcebook of Gestalt Psychology, ed Ellis W. D. (New York, NY: Humanities Press), 1– 11 (Original work published 1924).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 128

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Berryhill, M. E.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Corresponding author
Berryhill, Marian E.
ORCID
Berryhill, Marian E.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2014
Volume
5
Pages
800-800
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00800
PMC
PMC4111100
OpenAlex
W2172250870
Cited by
128
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Eye Institute (R15EY022775)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM103650, NIH P20GM103650)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, cognitive enhancement, working memory, response inhibition, non-invasive brain stimulation, replication failure, participant heterogeneity, participant motivation, translational research

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