Advertisement

A Re-evaluation of the Cognitive Effects From Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

  • Amy R. Price
    Affiliations
    Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Roy H. Hamilton
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., 3 West Gates, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
    Affiliations
    Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:March 30, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.03.007
      A well-designed meta-analysis can provide valuable information for researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and the general public by summarizing years of research in a field. These analyses can be highly influential, and thus it is critical that they be performed carefully. A recent meta-analysis by Horvath, Forte, and Carter (in press) [

      Horvath, J.C., J.D. Forte, O. Carter. Quantitative Review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul [in press].

      ] set out to determine whether a single-session of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) affects cognition in healthy adults.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      References

      1. Horvath, J.C., J.D. Forte, O. Carter. Quantitative Review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul [in press].

        • Floel A.
        • Rosser N.
        • Michka O.
        • Knecht S.
        • Breitenstein C.
        Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning.
        J Cogn Neurosci. 2008; 20: 1415-1422
        • Penolazzi B.
        • Pastore M.
        • Mondini S.
        Electrode montage dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on semantic fluency.
        Behav Brain Res. 2013; 248: 129-135
        • Cerruti C.
        • Schlaug G.
        Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex enhances complex verbal associative thought.
        J Cogn Neurosci. 2009; 21: 1980-1987
        • Fertonani A.
        • Rosini S.
        • Cotelli M.
        • Rossini P.M.
        • Miniussi C.
        Naming facilitation induced by transcranial direct current stimulation.
        Behav Brain Res. 2010; 208: 311-318
        • Wirth M.
        • Rahman R.A.
        • Kuenecke J.
        • et al.
        Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on behaviour and electrophysiology of language production.
        Neuropsychologia. 2011; 49: 3989-3998
        • Fiori V.
        • Coccia M.
        • Marinelli C.V.
        • et al.
        Transcranial direct current stimulation improves word retrieval in healthy and nonfluent aphasic subjects.
        J Cogn Neurosci. 2011; 23: 2309-2323
        • Zwissler B.
        • Sperber C.
        • Aigeldinger S.
        • Schindler S.
        • Kissler J.
        • Plewnia C.
        Shaping memory accuracy by left prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation.
        J Neurosci. 2014; 34: 4022-4026
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Green S.
        Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration.
        John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK2008
        • Fu R.
        • Gartlehner G.
        • Grant M.
        • et al.
        Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1187-1197

      Linked Article