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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Also, many studies provide insufficient power due to small sample sizes [103,104].”
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
Yaşlı Kadınlarda Üreme Sağlığı
Kokanalı, D., & Engin Üstün, Y. (n.d.) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 170,090
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III
Ryan, J. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1185-4_2 · Cited by 3,680
KESSLER, R. C., ADLER, L., AMES, M., DEMLER, O., FARAONE, S., HIRIPI, E., HOWES, M. J., JIN, R., SECNIK, K., SPENCER, T., et al. (2005) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291704002892 · Cited by 3,452
Transcranial 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
An automated version of the operation span task
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192720 · Cited by 1,861
Nitsche, M. A., Fricke, K., Henschke, U., Schlitterlau, A., Liebetanz, D., Lang, N., Henning, S. J., Tergau, F., & Paulus, W. (2003) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916 · Cited by 1,587
Capacity limit of visual short-term memory in human posterior parietal cortex
Todd, J. J., & Marois, R. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02466 · Cited by 1,521
Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke
Hummel, F. C. (2005) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awh369 · Cited by 1,141
Dissociable neural mechanisms supporting visual short-term memory for objects
Xu, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04262 · Cited by 974
tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review
Jacobson, L., Koslowsky, M., & Lavidor, M. (2012) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2891-9 · Cited by 847
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): A Beginner's Guide for Design and Implementation
Thair, H., Holloway, A. L., Newport, R., & Smith, A. D. (2017) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00641 · Cited by 520
Does Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improve Healthy Working Memory?: A Meta-analytic Review
Mancuso, L., Ilieva, I. P., Hamilton, R. H., & Farah, M. J. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00956 · Cited by 302
Fregni, F., Nitsche, M. A., Loo, C. K. A., Brunoni, A. R., Marangolo, P., Leite, J., Carvalho, S., Bolognini, N., Caumo, W., Paik, N., et al. (2014) · Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs · doi:10.3109/10601333.2015.980944 · Cited by 292
Mechanisms and Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Giordano, J., Bikson, M., Kappenman, E. S., Clark, V. P., Coslett, H. B., Hamblin, M. R., Hamilton, R. H., Jankord, R., Kozumbo, W. J., McKinley, R. A., et al. (2017) · Dose-Response · doi:10.1177/1559325816685467 · Cited by 215
Smith, R. C., Boules, S., Mattiuz, S., Youssef, M., Tobe, R. H., Sershen, H. W., Lajtha, Á., Nolan, K. A., Amiaz, R., & Davis, J. M. (2015) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2015.06.011 · Cited by 198
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)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
