Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 13:18:1485037.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1485037. eCollection 2024.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on modulating executive functions in healthy populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guopeng You  1 , Xinliang Pan  2 , Jun Li  3 , Shaocong Zhao  1
Affiliations

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on modulating executive functions in healthy populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guopeng You et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

Background: Conventional research has asserted that cognitive function, particularly, response inhibition, is closely related to the inferior frontal cortex (IFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or orbital frontal cortex (OFC), which belong to the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Different targets of anodal or cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) would affect the experimental results, but the stimulation of the same brain target would produce inconsistent findings.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of a-tDCS and c-tDCS applied over the PFC for healthy populations on reactive and proactive control process compared with sham or no tDCS conditions, as assessed using the Stop-signal task (SST) and Go/NoGo (GNG) task performance.

Methods: This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Search was conducted on Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Scopus, and Science Direct until March 2024. Studies that assessed the inhibitory control in SST or/and GNG tasks were included to achieve a homogenous sample.

Results: Fourteen studies were included for meta-analyses, which were performed for two outcome measures, namely, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and commission error (CE) rate. A-tDCS and c-tDCS over the PFC had significant ergogenic effects on SST performance (mean difference = -17.03, 95% CI [-24.62, -9.43], p < 0.0001; mean difference = -15.19, 95% CI [-19.82, -10.55], p < 0.00001), and that of a-tDCS had a positive effect on GNG task performance (mean difference = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.14], p = 0.03).

Conclusion: This review confirmed the engagement of PFC tDCS in reactive and proactive inhibitory processes. Future research should increase sample size and implement personalized stimulus protocols.

Keywords: go/nogo task; neural activity; prefrontal cortex; response inhibition; stop-signal task.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of a-tDCS on response inhibition in SST task. Cunillera et al. (2014)*, easy discrimination condition; Cunillera et al. (2014)#, hard discrimination condition; Ouellet et al. (2015)*, left OFC group; Ouellet et al. (2015)#, right OFC group; Stramaccia et al. (2015)*, right IFC group; Stramaccia et al. (2015)#, right DLPFC group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis of a-tDCS on response inhibition in GNG task. Ouellet et al. (2015)*, left OFC group; Ouellet et al. (2015)#.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis of c-tDCS on response inhibition in SST task. Stramaccia et al. (2015)*, right IFC group; Stramaccia et al. (2015)#, right DLPFC group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Amadi U., Ilie A., Johansen-Berg H., Stagg C. J. (2014). Polarity-specific effects of motor transcranial direct current stimulation on fMRI resting state networks. NeuroImage 88, 155–161. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.037, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Band G., Boxtel G. (1999). Inhibitory motor control in stop paradigms: review and reinterpretation of neural mechanisms. Acta Psychol. 101, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00005-0, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bari A., Robbins T. W. (2013). Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural basis of response control. Prog. Neurobiol. 108, 44–79. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.06.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bell S. B., Turner B., Sawaki L., DeWall N. (2020). When brain stimulation backfires: the effects of prefrontal cortex stimulation on impulsivity. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 17, 101–108. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa049 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Callan D. E., Brian F., Atsushi W., Raja P. (2016). Simultaneous tDCS-fMRI identifies resting state networks correlated with visual search enhancement. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10:72. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00072, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources