Transcranial direct current stimulation for empathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been used to modulate empathy, but no studies have meta-analyzed the evidence base for its efficacy. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of tDCS at modulating empathy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving anodal or cathodal versus sham tDCS to modulate empathy in healthy adults and clinical populations. Random-effects modelling was applied to pooling overall efficacy estimates using standardized mean differences (Hedge's g) and 95% confidence intervals. Outcome measures for tasks designed to measure empathy were reaction time and accuracy. Anodal tDCS appears to improve lab-based computerized measures of cognitive empathy in healthy adult volunteers. While the evidence provided by this review may be of relevance to individuals with impaired empathic capabilities, the generalizability of our findings is geared towards nonclinical populations given the preponderance of healthy volunteers in our review. Hence, it is not clear if moderate improvements in speed and accuracy on lab-based computerized empathy measures would lead to meaningful clinical improvements. Future studies should consider the use of tDCS to modulate empathy in clinical populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".