MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318612709 · doi:10.1016/j.neurom.2022.12.007

Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation to Modulate Alpha Activity: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4318612709 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General HospitalUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial alternating current stimulationStimulationAdverse effectElectroencephalographyAlpha (finance)Brain stimulationMedicineMagnetoencephalographyPsychologyNeuroscienceTranscranial magnetic stimulationPharmacologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it