No effect of tDCS of the primary motor cortex on isometric exercise performance or perceived fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex has been reported to improve isometric exercise performance without changing corticospinal excitability. One possible cause for this may be the previous use of relatively high (2 mA) current intensities, which have inconsistent effects on corticospinal excitability. The present pre-registered study aimed to replicate previously reported ergogenic effects of 2 mA tDCS and examine whether 1 mA anodal tDCS both improved isometric exercise performance and perceived fatigue, and more reliably altered corticospinal excitability. On three separate occasions, participants performed a sustained submaximal isometric knee extension until failure after receiving either 1, 2 mA or sham anodal tDCS. Corticospinal excitability of the knee extensors was measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation immediately before and after tDCS. Rating of fatigue was recorded throughout the isometric exercise. Neither 1 nor 2 mA tDCS improved exercise performance, or reduced perceived fatigue, compared with sham stimulation. There was also no effect of tDCS on the corticospinal excitability of the knee extensors. We found no effect of tDCS on either exercise performance, perceived fatigue or corticospinal excitability. This study adds to the growing body of literature reporting no ergogenic effect of tDCS. Large pre-registered replications of previously reported effects are now required before tDCS can be considered an effective method to improve exercise performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".