Neural Noise

Optimising transcranial direct current stimulation for exercise performance enhancement

2 min read

  • A review addresses optimisation of tDCS application for the enhancement of exercise performance (Frontiers, tier-2).1
  • It is useful for transcranial stimulation parameter and application context in motor and exercise settings.1 1

Gardner updates

  • A Frontiers review addresses optimisation of transcranial direct current stimulation application for the enhancement of exercise performance (tier-2). 1

  • Acute and chronic effects of tDCS on swimming performance and cognitive function were compared in elite swimmers (Nature). 2

  • Motor and cognitive outcomes from tDCS in athletes inform neuromodulation dose and timing. 2

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

  • The source review (Frontiers in Physiology, 2025) evaluates tDCS dose components—timing (online vs offline), intensity, current density, montage, and electrode configuration—and their interactions rather than in isolation.3 4
  • It argues that changes in dose components can produce non-linear and sometimes paradoxical effects on corticospinal excitability, the primary proposed mechanism for tDCS-related performance gains.3 4
  • It criticizes continued reliance on the outdated 10-20 EEG placement system and calls for protocol standardization, systematic dose-interaction studies, and direct comparisons of high-definition and extracephalic montages.3 4
  • A 2025 meta-analysis (31 RCTs, 473 athletes) found anodal tDCS moderately improved sport-specific performance (SMD=0.39, 95% CI 0.23-0.54, p<0.001), most consistently with M1 stimulation (SMD=0.32) followed by prefrontal cortex (SMD=0.39).5
  • That meta-analysis identified optimal parameters of 1.6-2.0 mA intensity (SMD=0.38) and 16-20 minute duration (SMD=0.45), with endurance (SMD=0.46) and competitive-collaborative skill tasks (SMD=0.45) benefiting most and strength/precision tasks less.5
  • A whole-body endurance meta-analysis (24 crossover trials, n=347) found anodal tDCS significantly prolonged time-to-exhaustion (SMD=0.58, p=0.001) but not time-trial performance (SMD=0.42, p=0.051), with a U-shaped duration-effect relationship favoring M1.6
  • A network meta-analysis (25 studies, 648 participants) ranked the DLPFC montage highest for whole-body aerobic endurance (SMD=0.66), M1 second (SMD=0.38), and temporal cortex non-significant (SMD=0.15).7
  • Countervailing evidence: an umbrella review of 9 meta-analyses (50 crossover studies, 683 participants) found the small pooled effect (g=0.28) became non-significant after correcting for publication bias (g=0.10, BF10=0.99), cautioning that acute tDCS is not conclusively ergogenic.8

Footnotes

  1. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMikgFBVV95cUxQUU93UnNNMlE0RHJuNTVUb3JnSlZpdlhDZ2ZfUFAwbDQxTllNNUdZMFpfcE1SeHlwSUFHWEEyeHBsYkg0RUpmdFd4a0Jsc1dLS19OOTB3dE1GV0Fmc1N3dXdyMkVwcXdyVlZUWi1ZTGtGUEJJY255cS1MemllVTBEMHc1U1NHMXpKMWRjaVFMSlZBQQ?oc=5 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiX0FVX3lxTE0yMHdqb05fMDBKT1JlUjloX0FzV21hdWtpeHhULTdSZXB5S25VLWctNkYxQVcyWjZGVUN1cmVpRG1pbWgyeGJMVXdqdTJyQ1JiTmxqN1Y5a0ZTR1hjaTNR?oc=5 ↩ ↩2

  3. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2025.1672603/full ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1672603 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1631905 ↩ ↩2

  6. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/apnm-2025-0407 ↩

  7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2585747 ↩

  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763424002902 ↩

Graph View