Can non‐invasive brain stimulation modulate peak alpha frequency in the human brain? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peak alpha frequency (PAF), the dominant oscillatory frequency within the alpha range (8-12 Hz), is associated with cognitive function and several neurological conditions, including chronic pain. Manipulating PAF could offer valuable insight into the relationship between PAF and various functions and conditions, potentially providing new treatment avenues. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively synthesise effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on PAF speed. Relevant studies assessing PAF pre- and post-NIBS in healthy adults were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, Scopus, The Cochrane Library) and trial registers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was employed for assessing study quality. Quantitative analysis was conducted through pairwise meta-analysis when possible; otherwise, qualitative synthesis was performed. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020190512) and the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2yaxz/). Eleven NIBS studies were included, all with a low risk-of-bias, comprising seven transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), three repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and one transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) study. Meta-analysis of active tACS conditions (eight conditions from five studies) revealed no significant effects on PAF (mean difference [MD] = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.32 to 0.08, p = 0.24). Qualitative synthesis provided no evidence that tDCS altered PAF and moderate evidence for transient increases in PAF with 10 Hz rTMS. However, it is crucial to note that small sample sizes were used, there was substantial variation in stimulation protocols, and most studies did not specifically target PAF alteration. Further studies are needed to determine NIBS's potential for modulating PAF.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".