Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation.

By P. C. Gandiga, Friedhelm Christoph Hummel, Leonardo G. Cohen. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2006

1,659 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology, Rehabilitation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d10a423a08b3934131373304270ee1a55c07ac91

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Neurology

In Rehabilitation

Citations in the corpus

Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008 (2008, methodology): “Compared with TMS, it is easier to conduct placebo stimulation-controlled studies with tDCS, because, with the exception of a slight itching sensation and sensory phenomena, including retinal phosphenes with current switching, subjects rarely experience sensations related to the treatment.(26) To re”
Mathematics Anxiety: What Have We Learned in 60 Years? (2016, background): “This serves as a reliable blinding method, and participants are generally unable to distinguish between real and sham stimulation (Gandiga et al., 2006).”
Clinical Research with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and Future Directions (2011, neutral): “2 mA/s generates no discomfort for most subjects.(121) Interestingly, some subjects in the sham group continue feeling some tingling even after the current is discontinued.”
Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017, background): “…conditions, where stimulation was applied only for a short duration at the beginning of the session (Boggio et al. , 2010, Fertonani et al. , 2014, Gandiga et al. , 2006, Harty et al. , 2014, Hoff et al. , 2015, Holland et al. , 2011, Learmonth et al. , 2015, Manenti et al. , 2013, Parikh and…”
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Auditory Verbal Hallucinations as Atypical Inner Speech Monitoring, and the Potential of Neurostimulation as a Treatment Option (neutral): “In this way, participants tend to be unaware that they are no longer receiving active stimulation (Gandiga et al., 2006; though see O'Connell et al., 2012).”
Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation (2009, methodology): “048C/cm2)for20minintheanodalandcathodaltDCS group and for up to 30 seconds in the Sham session according to a previously describedmethod(52).”
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory in patients with Parkinson's disease (2006, methodology): “The main strengths of this study are the reliable sham method that tDCS can provide as recently demonstrated [13] and the dose–effect response for the tDCS treatment as we showed no significant findings using a small intensity of stimulation.”
Dissociating the roles of the cerebellum and motor cortex during adaptive learning: the motor cortex retains what the cerebellum learns. (2011, methodology): “At the onset of tDCS, the current was increased in a ramp-like fashion over a period of 30 s, a method shown to achieve a good level of blinding (Gandiga et al. 2006).”
A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools (2015, methodology): “25 cm(2), this method has been shown to reliably blind participants (Gandiga et al., 2006; Ambrus et al., 2012).”
A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. (2011, background): “In one study (Gandiga et al. 2006) subjects continued to feel tingling sensations even in the sham condition and were not able to differentiate in a reliable manner the sham from active tDCS condition.”
tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases (2014, neutral): “…of 1 mA) and sham tDCS elicit comparably minimal discomfort and duration of sensations in the absence of differences in attention or fatigue, and can thus not be distinguished from sham by study participants nor investigators (Gandiga et al., 2006; Iyer et al., 2005; Nitsche et al., 2005).”