Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42370069›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026

The inconsistent effects of tDCS in rehabilitation and cognitive enhancement: sources of variability and paths to personalization.

Andrey Timashkov, Sergey Andreev, Anna Safonova, Samira Zangieva, Dzerassa Kadieva, Oksana Zinchenko

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrey TimashkovCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Sergey AndreevCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Anna SafonovaFaculty of Social Sciences, School of Psychology, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Samira ZangievaFaculty of Social Sciences, School of Psychology, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Dzerassa KadievaCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Oksana ZinchenkoCentre for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/aims: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a promising intervention in both rehabilitation and cognitive enhancement, yet its effects remain inconsistent across studies. This variability has raised questions about the underlying mechanisms influencing tDCS efficacy. Methods: In this review, we address the issue of the inconsistent effect of tDCS on motor and cognitive domains across studies in healthy individuals and those with neurodegenerative disorders. A review of literature in the field was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Results: Research indicates that individual anatomical differences among subjects may contribute to the inconsistent outcomes observed, as variations in current density at targeted brain regions and genetic variations responsible for the stimulation effect. Understanding the factors that contribute to the inconsistent effects of tDCS will be essential for enhancing its application in clinical settings and maximizing its potential benefits in cognitive rehabilitation and enhancement. Conclusion: Future research should focus on optimizing tDCS parameters and exploring individualized approaches to treatment, taking into account the diverse responses observed in different populations.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseasecognitive enhancementinter-individual variabilityParkinson’s diseaserehabilitationtDCStranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID42370069
PMCPMC13294065

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.