Back

Use of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for improving motor performance in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sasaki, A.; Ideriha, T.; Matsuoka, A.; Goto, Y.; Yoshimura, N.; Hagura, N.

2026-05-06 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.05.01.722354 bioRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can noninvasively modulate activity in targeted brain regions. It is well established that the excitability of motor-related regions can increase when the target region is located beneath the anode (anodal tDCS), suggesting its potential to increase motor performance. Although such attempts have been widely examined, the results remain inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to assess the conditions under which anodal tDCS may improve motor performance in healthy adults. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies on the use of anodal tDCS for improving motor performance in healthy adults. A computerized search was performed using the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, JDreamIII, and Ichushi-Web to identify relevant studies published between January 1, 1990 and May 25, 2022. ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. For the meta-analysis, 25 trials (N=885) were extracted from 23 studies. There were significant effects of anodal tDCS on motor performance improvement, but with evidence of publication bias and substantial heterogeneity among the trials. Post-hoc analysis revealed that motor performance 24 hours after the application of anodal tDCS may benefit from stimulation. There was no marked effect related to stimulation intensity, duration, or whether stimulation was provided during motor performance. ConclusionsOur study clarified the current state of anodal tDCS use for motor performance enhancement and indicates that there is currently no reliable evidence to support its effectiveness. Further studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to establish the reliability of these effects for future applications.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.9%
2
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
4
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
6
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
7
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
8
The Cerebellum
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
9
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
10
Brain Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
11
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
15
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
16
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
19
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
21
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Journal of Neurology
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Neuroscience Letters
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
26
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%