↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 1,404)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
32 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
350 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
652 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be)
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jared C. Horvath, Olivia Carter, Jason D. Forte

Abstract

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory device often publicized for its ability to enhance cognitive and behavioral performance. These enhancement claims, however, are predicated upon electrophysiological evidence and descriptions which are far from conclusive. In fact, a review of the literature reveals a number of important experimental and technical issues inherent with this device that are simply not being discussed in any meaningful manner. In this paper, we will consider five of these topics. The first, inter-subject variability, explores the extensive between- and within-group differences found within the tDCS literature and highlights the need to properly examine stimulatory response at the individual level. The second, intra-subject reliability, reviews the lack of data concerning tDCS response reliability over time and emphasizes the importance of this knowledge for appropriate stimulatory application. The third, sham stimulation and blinding, draws attention to the importance (yet relative lack) of proper control and blinding practices in the tDCS literature. The fourth, motor and cognitive interference, highlights the often overlooked body of research that suggests typical behaviors and cognitions undertaken during or following tDCS can impair or abolish the effects of stimulation. Finally, the fifth, electric current influences, underscores several largely ignored variables (such as hair thickness and electrode attachments methods) influential to tDCS electric current density and flow. Through this paper, we hope to increase awareness and start an ongoing dialog of these important issues which speak to the efficacy, reliability, and mechanistic foundations of tDCS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 652 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 617 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 134 21%
Researcher 116 18%
Student > Master 102 16%
Student > Bachelor 63 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 6%
Other 105 16%
Unknown 95 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 181 28%
Neuroscience 120 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 86 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 6%
Engineering 34 5%
Other 67 10%
Unknown 126 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#583,442
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#41
of 1,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,915
of 319,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.