ArticleExperimental brain research2025
The influence of informational priming on motor expectancy in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
Article in Experimental brain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) at Fp3-Fp2 Reduces the Face Inversion Effect: Evidence Against an Expectancy Account.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Cognitive load-dependent effects of HD-tDCS on the executive vigilance decrement: insights from aperiodic EEG activity.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown mixed results in cognitive and motor functions, raising questions about its efficacy and/or the potential influence of psychological factors. Expectations about treatment efficacy (a placebo-like mechanism) might explain this mixed tDCS success. Recent research has begun to examine the expectations of tDCS on performance. However, it is unclear how malleable individual tDCS expectations are within the motor domain. This study investigated how informational priming influences participants' expectations of tDCS on motor function and whether prior tDCS knowledge influences this effect. One hundred ninety-eight participants were recruited and assigned into high or low expectation priming groups. A modified expectation assessment scale, which measured expected tDCS-related motor performance, was administered before and after receiving information about tDCS efficacy. The high-expectation priming group was exposed to evidence of such efficacy, while the low-expectation priming group received information emphasizing the lack of evidence of tDCS efficacy. Expectations of tDCS efficacy for all motor domains significantly increased in the high-expectation priming group and decreased in the low-expectation priming group. Furthermore, after priming, the high-expectation priming group had significantly higher expectations than the low-expectation priming group. Interestingly, participants in the high-expectation priming group with prior knowledge of tDCS showed no change in expectations. Notably, these findings demonstrate that expectations about tDCS's efficacy on motor performance are malleable depending on the information type and prior tDCS knowledge. Future studies are encouraged to control or assess participants' expectations of tDCS to optimize its effect on motor outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439933What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.