ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Virtual Reality in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review of Evidence, Limitations, and Methodological Challenges.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review examined studies combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with virtual reality (VR) in healthy or non-clinical populations. The aim was to evaluate whether active tDCS provides additional benefits when delivered during VR-based tasks or interventions aimed at improving behavioral abilities.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (2000-September 2025) identified randomized and non-randomized studies employing simultaneous tDCS and VR in healthy individuals. Studies reporting psychological or cognitive quantitative outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools.
resultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria. The included studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of sample size, VR systems, stimulation parameters, targeted cortical regions, outcome measures, and control conditions. Most designs compared active tDCS during VR with sham tDCS during the same VR exposure. Therefore, the available evidence mainly addresses whether tDCS adds value to VR-based procedures, rather than whether tDCS and VR exert independent or synergistic effects. Some studies reported favorable between-group effects on emotional control or skill acquisition. However, in other cognitive domains both active and sham/control VR groups improved, suggesting that VR training or exposure itself may have contributed substantially to the observed changes. Moreover, small sample sizes, multiple outcome testing, and limited correction for multiple comparisons reduce confidence in borderline findings.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that active tDCS may incrementally enhance selected VR-based outcomes in healthy populations, particularly in emotional control and skill-learning domains. However, the literature does not yet support strong claims of synergistic interaction between tDCS and VR. Future studies should use adequately powered factorial designs including VR-only, tDCS-only, combined, and sham/no-intervention conditions to disentangle independent, additive, and interaction effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.