Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation to Modulate Alpha Activity: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has been one of numerous investigation methods used for their potential to modulate brain oscillations; however, such investigations have given contradictory results and a lack of standardization. OBJECTIVES: In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the potential of tACS to modulate alpha spectral power. The secondary outcome was the identification of tACS methodologic key parameters, adverse effects, and sensations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies in healthy adults who were receiving active and sham tACS intervention or any differential condition were included. The main outcome assessed was the increase/decrease of alpha spectral power through either electroencephalography or magnetoencephalography. Secondary outcomes were methodologic parameters, sensation reporting, and adverse effects. Risks of bias and the study quality were assessed with the Cochrane assessment tool. RESULTS: We obtained 1429 references, and 20 met the selection criteria. A statistically significant alpha-power increase was observed in nine studies using continuous tACS stimulation and two using intermittent tACS stimulation set at a frequency within the alpha range. A statistically significant alpha-power increase was observed in three more studies using a stimulation frequency outside the alpha range. Heterogeneity among stimulation parameters was recognized. Reported adverse effects were mild. The implementation of double blind was identified as challenging using tACS, in part owing to electrical artifacts generated by stimulation on the recorded signal. CONCLUSIONS: Most assessed studies reported that tACS has the potential to modulate brain alpha power. The optimization of this noninvasive brain stimulation method is of interest mostly for its potential clinical applications with neurological conditions associated with perturbations in alpha brain activity. However, more research efforts are needed to standardize optimal parameters to achieve lasting modulation effects, develop methodologic alternatives to reduce experimental bias, and improve the quality of studies using tACS to modulate brain activity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".