Abstract
Working memory (WM) is an essential neuropsychological system that supports complex cognitive processes. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses electrical current to modulate brain activity and may serve as a tool for studying or even enhancing WM. Here, we review the recent research that has explored the effects of tDCS on WM in healthy young adults, older adults, and patient populations. We also discuss several recent meta-analyses that have examined the efficacy of tDCS as a WM intervention. While a majority of the papers reviewed suggest that tDCS can modulate WM, this effect is highly inconsistent. These seemingly conflicting results may be driven by differences in study design, tDCS protocol, or inter-individual differences. Future research should systematically vary stimulation parameters, combine tDCS with neuroimaging, and account for individual differences in order to accurately assess the value of tDCS as a way to study and enhance WM.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Working memory (WM) is a neuropsychological system that allows information to be manipulated and maintained temporarily in service of complex cognitive processes including goal-directed behavior, learning, and problem solving [1]. Dysfunction of WM is often observed in healthy older adults [2–4] and is a hallmark of several neurological disorders including schizophrenia [5], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [6], and Parkinson’s disease [7]. Because of its importance to cognition, a wide variety of interventions have been developed to prevent, cease, or even reverse WM decline, albeit with mixed results [8–10]. Despite some progress with current pharmacological, cognitive training, and behavioral interventions, there remains a pressing need for efficient interventions that can generate consistent and long-lasting benefits in WM.
One potential candidate is non-invasive brain stimulation, specifically transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Because tDCS is relatively inexpensive, safe, and easy to administer, interest in tDCS as a cognitive enhancement tool has grown rapidly over the last decade. This interest spans basic scientific and clinical research; however, significant progress is needed in identifying optimal stimulation parameters and understanding the underlying neural mechanisms affected by tDCS [11]. Despite these and other challenges, the potential to modulate activity exogenously and facilitate cortical plasticity offers exciting opportunities to build upon neuroimaging observations, strengthen causal claims, and craft interventions for vulnerable and healthy populations. Here we provide an overview of tDCS followed by a focused review of the effects of tDCS on common WM task performance in healthy young adults, healthy older adults, and clinical populations. Additionally, we highlight a few seminal meta-analyses, discuss the current limitations of using tDCS to study cognitive processes, and propose future directions for research employing tDCS to influence WM.
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
tDCS belongs to a family of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that exploit electrical and magnetic principles to modulate neural activity exogenously (see [12•] for review). Although systematic investigations of its effects date back to the mid-1900s [13, 14], tDCS experienced a resurgence in interest in the early 2000s driven by advances in neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and safety standards [15]. In the past two decades, over 1000 papers have been published on the use of tDCS.
Administering tDCS
Traditionally, tDCS is administered by passing a weak constant electrical current through two electrodes housed in saline-soaked sponges. One sponge is fastened to the subject’s scalp over a region of interest while the other (sometimes referred to as the reference) is placed over another cortical region or a non-cortical location such as the cheek or arm. The electricity generated by a battery-powered direct current stimulator flows from the anode electrode to the cathode electrode. Stimulation is generally applied for 10–30 min; however, the effects of tDCS have been shown to last as long as several hours [16], and multisession stimulation has been shown to result in improvements on cognitive tasks that are evident months after the intervention [17, 18]. Variations in current strength, electrode size, and stimulation duration modify the “dose” of stimulation and have been shown to modulate responsiveness to tDCS [19]. Importantly, increases in current density, which are determined by electrode size and current amplitude, increase the depth of the electrical field generated potentially resulting in a non-linear relationship between stimulation and its effects [19]. In a seminal study, Nitche and Paulus [20] showed that applying a weak positive or negative electrical current over the motor cortex increased or diminished cortical excitability, respectively, as measured by motor-evoked potentials. Thus, anodal stimulation is generally thought to increase neural excitability while cathodal stimulation is thought to inhibit neuronal activity. However, as discussed below, inconsistent results supporting this assumption have led to a call to eschew this simplistic understanding of polarity effects (see [21]).
One advantage of tDCS is the easy application of a placebo, or sham, condition built into many stimulators. Naïve subjects in parallel studies are effectively blinded to condition (i.e., unaware of whether or not they are being activated stimulated) [22] while some subjects in cross-over design studies have been shown to correctly identify conditions, albeit somewhat unreliably [23]. tDCS is also relatively safe. Documented side effects are minor, benign, and fleeting. tDCS has been used safely in studies of children and adolescents with few, minor adverse events reported [24]. Currently, the most commonly reported side effects include itching or tingling sensations at the electrode site, mild headache, burning sensation, and discomfort. However, there is a selective reporting bias such that nearly half of the studies examined in one review did not report the presence or absence of adverse events [25, see also Tables 1 and 2].
Proposed Mechanisms of tDCS
Despite the limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms of tDCS, the potential to modulate activation exogenously and increase neuroplasticity has far-reaching implications for cognition and behavior. Unlike TMS, which uses strong magnetic fields to disrupt brain activity directly, tDCS uses weak electrical fields that slightly modify the neural membrane potential making neurons more or less likely to fire [12•]. Current modeling indicates that conventional tDCS is less focal than TMS, and can affect cortical regions distant from the electrode [73]. Importantly, tDCS seems to work via two mechanisms: one that acts during stimulation and the other that acts following stimulation [74]. Consequently, attention should be paid to whether a study employs an online protocol, in which task performance is measured while receiving stimulation, an offline protocol, in which task performance is measured following stimulation, or some combination of the two.
During stimulation, tDCS is thought to act by modulating neuronal resting membrane potential in a polarity-specific manner. In this conceptualization, anodal stimulation depolarizes resting membrane potentials, thereby increasing firing rate, whereas cathodal stimulation hyperpolarizes resting membrane potentials, making them less likely to fire [75]. Following stimulation, the reverberating effects of tDCS are thought to rely on modulation of glutamatergic synapses which may, in turn, result in long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) acting in the previously stimulated regions [74]. tDCS-induced plasticity is modulated by acetylcholine, serotonin, and dopamine neurotransmitter systems and therefore may be governed, in part, by genetic polymorphisms [74, 76••, 77]. Beyond intracortical interneuron communication, tDCS has been shown to modulate cortico-cortico and cortico-subcortical functional connectivity [78, 79].
Recent Advances
Recently, modifications to the administration of tDCS aim to diversify its use as a neuromodulation tool and address shortcomings. These modifications have included high-definition tDCS (HD tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS). Improvements in focal stimulation have been achieved by using high-definition tDCS, which involves a number of smaller, gel-based electrodes (approx. 12 cm2) applied strategically in a ring around an area of interest (see [80] for detailed treatment). Whereas much initial research focused on stimulating the motor cortex, HD tDCS reportedly facilitates visual perception [81] and verbal learning [43] when applied to occipital and fronto-temporal regions, respectively. While HD stimulation combined with neuroimaging is needed to determine the extent of current dispersion, HD tDCS may help identify casual roles for specific brain regions and may be a safer, inexpensive alternative to TMS.
tACS entails the application of symmetrical oscillatory stimulation which has been shown to modulate and entrain cortical oscillations as measured by frequency bands (see [82] for review). tACS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) can entrain gamma oscillations resulting in greater WM improvements at higher loads than those found using traditional tDCS [83]. Like tDCS, tACS may work by modulating neural membrane potential. Thus far, these changes appear not to have plasticity-inducing effects, thereby limiting the potential utility of tACS as a tool for cognitive intervention [84].
Finally, tRNS is a form of tACS that employs currents at random frequencies (0.1–640 Hz) resulting in LTP-like changes [85]. Unlike tDCS, tRNS is not sensitive to current flow, is NMDA-receptor independent, and is easier to blind [85, 86]. When compared to tDCS, tRNS has been shown to result in larger improvements in visual learning [87] and larger suppression of tinnitus symptoms [88]. Despite these promising recent findings, tRNS research is in its infancy and more work is needed to determine the optimal circumstances for using tRNS.
tDCS and Working Memory
Studies examining the effects of tDCS on WM are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. It is widely accepted that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) plays a crucial role in WM function [89]. Accordingly, most studies place electrodes of interest over regions that correspond to DLPFC location (BA 9/46; International 10-20 system: F3 or F4). The present review is limited to studies that employed a well-established WM task or variant. These include digit span forward and backwards, in which participants repeat number strings of increasing length in forward or reversed order [90], Corsi Block forward and backwards, which uses block locations to examine visuospatial WM [90], letter-number sequencing, which requires participants to organize a random series of numbers and letters into ascending order [90], the Sternberg task, in which participants hold a varying number of items in mind and then judge whether or not a probe is in the remembered list [91], and the N-back task, which requires participants to match a current item and one presented a specified number of trials before [89].
Single-Session tDCS and Working Memory
Most tDCS research has been conducted on young, healthy adults and the effects on WM performance have been mixed. Several studies find that anodal tDCS applied to F3 results in improved WM performance [26, 31, 35, 36, 44], others find improvements in response time but not accuracy [41, 43, 47; but see 32], while still others find no effect of stimulation on performance [30, 42, 46, 50]. The seemingly contradictory results may have various origins including differences in stimulation parameters and task difficulty across studies. For example, Martin et al. [39] examined the effect of offline versus online anodal stimulation of F3 on an N-back task with adaptive difficulty within individuals. Online stimulation applied during adaptive N-back training resulted in significantly larger WM gains on a test the following day compared to offline stimulation before training. In another study [34], 1-mA, but not 2-mA, stimulation resulted in response time improvements on a 2-back task, with the greatest improvements present 40 min following stimulation. In addition to stimulation differences, differences in task demand may influence the effectiveness of tDCS. Recently, Wu and colleagues [49] found that anodal tDCS over rDLPFC resulted in improvements to spatial WM only in the most demanding condition (backwards Corsi recall with motor interference). Similarly, anodal stimulation over lDLPFC appears most effective in high-demand tasks [33, 40].
In a recent comprehensive meta-analysis, Horvath and colleagues [92••] reported finding no reliable effect of single-session tDCS on any of a number of cognitive tasks, including WM tasks. These results, however, run contrary to meta-analyses conducted by Hill et al. [93••] and by Brunoni and Vanderhaselt [94•]. Hill and colleagues [93••] examined the effects of tDCS on WM performance, specifically. They found that offline anodal stimulation results in improvements in WM response times and trends towards increased accuracy in healthy adults. In another meta-analysis, Brunoni and Vanderhaselt [94•] specifically examined the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation of DLPFC on N-back performance. The authors reported results similar to Hill and colleagues [93••]: a significant improvement in WM response time, but not accuracy, following tDCS. Hill [93••] suggests that the discrepancies between their meta-analysis and Horvath’s meta-analysis could be due to differences in power. Hill’s meta-analysis included a larger number of WM studies compared to Horvath’s which parsed 53 cognitive studies into smaller subsamples (2 to 6 studies each) based on stimulation parameters and cognitive task. Price and Hamilton [95] have criticized this approach, claiming that running separate analyses on subsamples may yield results that are insufficiently powered to allow for meaningful interpretation. Horvath noted that their null effects arose from data from healthy young adults after a single-session of tDCS and suggested that tDCS administered in other populations, or over multiple sessions, may yield different results.
Multiple-Session tDCS and Working Memory
As highlighted by Horvath [92••], tDCS effects may need to accumulate across multiple sessions to be observed consistently in cognitive tasks. To date, only a handful of studies have used multiple sessions of tDCS to influence WM performance in healthy, young adults. Anodal stimulation of lDLPFC across two [52] and four [54] sessions did not result in WM improvements on N-back tasks. Martin et al. [53] examined the effect of ten sessions of anodal tDCS to lDLPFC administered while performing a WM training task (adaptive dual N-back) on training-task performance as well as on WM measures completed before and after the intervention. Online tDCS resulted in more accurate WM performance during stimulation, but did not increase post-stimulation performance on either the WM training task or the untrained tasks. In a more recent study, however, Richmond and colleagues [55] found that compared to sham stimulation, ten sessions of anodal tDCS to lDLPFC during verbal WM training resulted in significant improvement on the trained task. Further, active stimulation resulted in significant improvements on untrained WM tasks compared to a no-contact control group. However, there were no differences between active and sham groups or between sham and no-contact control groups on the untrained tasks. Importantly, Richmond and colleagues [55] employed a montage in which the cathode was placed over another cortical region (rDLPFC), unlike Martin and colleagues [53], who placed the cathode in an extracephalic position (right deltoid) to avoid confounding potentially inhibitory effects. This raises the intriguing possibility that the excitatory effects of the anode depend on inhibitory effects of the cathode over other, perhaps competing regions to improve WM.
Clinical Populations
WM dysfunction is a symptom often associated with neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. tDCS has been reported to successfully enhance motor and cognitive function in disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, aphasia, and neglect (see [96•] for review). tDCS has been shown to improve WM performance in people recovering from stroke [70], people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease [67], and people with schizophrenia [68, 69]. However, tDCS has shown no effect on WM performance in people suffering from traumatic brain injury [71], temporal lobe epilepsy [72], or Alzheimer’s disease [59]. In a preliminary meta-analysis, Hill and colleagues [93••] examined the effects of tDCS on WM performance in neuropsychiatric patient cohorts, including depression, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia. Unlike healthy adults, who exhibited improvement from offline stimulation, neuropsychiatric patients only showed significant improvements in WM accuracy with online stimulation. The authors speculate that, because patient populations have abnormalities in the balance of excitation and inhibition, stimulation during task may be necessary to adequately modulate this balance. However, it is worth noting that this meta-analysis collapsed across multiple types of neuropsychiatric disorders; patient populations may differ in responsive to tDCS.
The most extensive work to date on tDCS in patient populations has been in depression. Similar to patterns observed in healthy individuals, the results are inconsistent. Several studies employing multiple lDLPFC anodal stimulation sessions reported no effect on WM performance in depressed individuals [62, 64, 65], whereas other multisession stimulation studies using similar stimulation parameters reported significant improvements [63, 66]. Moreover, studies by Moreno et al. [60] and Oliveira et al. [61] on depressed participants found WM improvements after just one session of lDLPFC anodal stimulation. The studies reporting tDCS effectiveness on WM in depressed individuals had notably younger participants (M age = 26.5–46.4) than studies in which the intervention was ineffective (M age = 45.6–52.4) suggesting that age may interact with depression to affect tDCS efficacy.
Older Adults
Research examining how tDCS affects cognition in healthy older adults (65+) is relatively sparse. This is surprising because tDCS is thought to promote cortical plasticity [74], and aging is characterized by a decline in plasticity [97] making tDCS a potential promising intervention for cognitive aging. However, a recent meta-analytic review conducted by Summers and colleagues [76••] collected 25 separate studies, published over the last 5 years, and found a robust enhancing effect of anodal tDCS on cognitive processes in the elderly. Specifically, anodal tDCS enhanced performance on memory/WM tasks with an observed effect size of 0.45. Additionally, stimulation applied before task and to cortical regions other than DLPFC showed the largest effects [76••]. Another review focused specifically on WM in older adults found similar results [98•] suggesting that tDCS may serve as an effective WM intervention in the elderly.
Many of these meta-analyses and reviews are limited by the paucity of research focused specifically on tDCS and WM in older adults. For example, the Summers et al. [76••] review combines both long-term memory and WM into a single moderator variable. Individual studies of tDCS and well-accepted WM tasks, like the N-back task, often provide mixed results. Nilsson and colleagues [57] examined the effect of 1- and 2-mA single-session anodal stimulation to lDLPFC on 3-back performance in older adults. Anodal stimulation did not affect WM accuracy or response time during or after stimulation, regardless of stimulation amplitude. In contrast, Seo et al. [58] found that older adults who received anodal stimulation to this region performed better on a verbal N-back task, when compared to participants who received sham. Berryhill and Jones [56] found anodal tDCS improves WM performance, but only in highly educated older adults, suggesting that perhaps differences in participant characteristics and demographics may contribute to the observed inconsistent tDCS effects in older adults. Studies employing multiple stimulation sessions in older adults have also yielded a complex pattern of results. Whereas one recent study indicated that ten sessions of anodal lDLPFC stimulation coupled with cognitive training resulted in greater WM improvements immediately following stimulation, compared to those who received sham stimulation [17], another study employing a similar design found no effect [18]. In both studies, however, older adults who received active anodal stimulation maintained WM improvement at follow-up (7 days–1 month), compared to older adults who received sham stimulation, suggesting a potential role for tDCS in long-term maintenance of training benefits.
Methodological Issues and Other Challenges
In a recent review, Trembley and colleagues [99•] found that studies of tDCS applied to DLPFC reported inconsistent changes in WM performance. Anodal stimulation to left DLPFC resulted in increases in WM performance in some research and declines in WM performance in others. They observed a similarly discrepant pattern across studies using cathodal stimulation to this region. Inconsistent outcomes across studies could stem from differences in study design, stimulation parameters, and participant inter- and intra-individual differences. Notable methodological differences include electrode montage, current density and duration, online/offline stimulation, number of stimulation sessions, sham/active comparison condition, parallel/crossover design, washout period, age range, WM task, task difficulty, and participant/experimenter blindness to the stimulation conditions. Many of these differences are evident in Tables 1 and 2. The next section outlines additional issues that should be considered when designing or interpreting the results of a tDCS study.
Assumptions of Polarity
Anodal stimulation is theoretically associated with excitation, whereas cathodal stimulation is linked to inhibition. However, according to recent evidence, these polarity-specific assumptions, based primarily on initial research in the motor cortex, are violated in both motor and non-motor regions [21]. While the effects of tDCS on the human motor cortex can be measured directly with a combination of TMS and observed motor-evoked potentials, to date assessing tDCS effects on non-motor cortex relies on the performance of tasks hypothesized to depend on the underlying brain regions. That is, assessment of tDCS effects on non-motor cortex are indirect and thus more subject to uncontrolled variability. In their meta-analytic review, Jacobson and colleagues [21] noted that the anodal/excitation cathodal/inhibition dichotomy is primarily observed in motor studies and rarely (probability = 0.16) observed in cognitive studies. This disparity is driven by the lack of observed cathodal/inhibition effect, rather than the anodal/excitatory effect, which is more robust. The authors suggest that difficulty finding the cathodal/inhibition effect may stem from the fact that higher-order cognitive tasks depend on complex, multinode networks that are more widely distributed. This makes it more challenging to determine the critical site or loci where stimulation will be most effective. Cognitive processes may also compensate for inhibition to certain cortical regions, which could contribute to inconsistent outcomes from cathodal stimulation.
State-Dependent Effects
tDCS does not directly depolarize neurons, but instead appears to modulate the neuronal membrane, thereby changing the likelihood of firing. Therefore, the effects of tDCS are influenced by the state of the cortical region to which stimulation is applied [99•]. Because responsiveness seems to be largely governed by baseline cortical excitability, “excitatory” anodal stimulation applied to a region that is highly active may cause a reversal of the anticipated effect, instead resulting in inhibition [100]. Consequently, the type of task and task difficulty become particularly important variables. Compounding the complexity of this issue, variability in time of day, strategy, and fatigue can also influence the state of a network [99•].
In studies that used offline stimulation, instructions to participants ranged from sitting quietly to completing complex tasks, which could in principle lead to different responsiveness to tDCS. Consistent with this possibility, Carvalho et al. [29•] found that two cathodal stimulation sessions separated by a break improved WM task performance when compared to cathodal stimulation followed by anodal stimulation or two sham stimulation sessions. The authors interpret these results to suggest that modulation of baseline activity affects the subsequent effects of tDCS on behavior. Regarding online stimulation, the same task may elicit different patterns of activity across participants. For example, compared to healthy young adults, older adults and schizophrenic patients show hyperactivation of rDLPFC when successfully completing moderately challenging WM tasks [101, 102]. For this reason, identical electrode montages may have different behavioral consequences across populations.
Individual Differences in Responsiveness
Two studies have documented large inter-individual differences in tDCS responsiveness with less than half of the participants demonstrating the anticipated response [103, 104]. Research employing a combination of neuroimaging and current modeling finds that individual differences in physiology and anatomy, including skull morphology, fiber orientation, fat tissue, and cerebrospinal fluid, may modify the locus and extent of cortex stimulated by the same montage [76••]. Using individual structural MRI data to model current density, Kim et al. [37•] found that the participants exhibiting WM improvements had significantly larger current density than those who did not show improvements. Furthermore, older adults’ electric fields have been shown to be 30 % weaker, on average, compared to their younger counterparts [76••]. This has important implications for tDCS responsiveness in older adults or any other group with different electrical fields than healthy young adults. Other individual differences, including genetic polymorphisms (e.g., BDNF [105]; COMT [106]), hormone levels, and neurotransmitter levels, have been shown to interact with tDCS to influence research outcomes (see [107] for review). These results underscore the important role of individual differences in tDCS efficacy and highlight the need for more accurate, individualized current flow modeling.
Conclusion
Inconsistent results have led to questions of whether or not tDCS is an effective neuromodulation tool for manipulating or enhancing WM. Interpretations of current findings are limited by small sample sizes and sparse replications. Future research should aim not only to replicate previous research but to extend it by evaluating systematic variations in stimulation parameters, such as current density and montage. Study design factors need to be investigated, such as task difficulty, number of stimulation sessions, and on- vs. off-line stimulation. Furthermore, additional research is needed to improve our understanding of how underlying neurobiological mechanisms impact the outcome of tDCS. Multimodal studies combining tDCS with neuroimaging may elucidate how different montages modulate specific brain regions; these studies may be used to create more detailed individualized current flow models. Stimulation of a particular region may cause diffuse changes in multiple regions, so researchers must be cautious when using tDCS to link regions to functions [76••]. To address this limitation, research should be conducted that compares active stimulation montages to one another, in addition to sham stimulation. Given the potential promise of stimulation-driven WM enhancement in older adults, we encourage more researchers to explore the long-term effects of tDCS on cognition. Also, thorough documentation and reporting of adverse effects and participant awareness/blindness to condition is prudent and critical to evaluating study outcomes. Finally, we note that the value and significance of the foundational studies discussed in this review are not weakened by the challenges highlighted above. As Richard Feynman once said, “We scientists have a way of dealing with such problems. We ignore them, temporarily” [108]. Researchers have already demonstrated the considerable promise that tDCS holds for improving WM. We suggest that time to address these challenges is upon us.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Baddeley A. Working memory: the interface between memory and cognition. J Cogn Neurosci. 1992;4(3):281–8.
Reuter-Lorenz PA, Park DC. Human neuroscience and the aging mind: a new look at old problems. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010;65(4):405–15.
Wang M, Gamo NJ, Yang Y, Jin LE, Wang XJ, Laubach M, et al. Neuronal basis of age-related working memory decline. Nature. 2011;476(7359):210–3.
Zacks RT. Working memory, comprehension, and aging: a review and a new view. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1989;22(22):193–225.
Silver H, Feldman P, Bilker W, Gur RC. Working memory deficit as a core neuropsychological dysfunction in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatr. 2003;160(10):1809–16.
Karatekin C, Asarnow RF. Working memory in childhood-onset schizophrenia and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Res. 1998;80(2):165–76.
Kensinger EA, Shearer DK, Locascio JJ, Growdon JH, Corkin S. Working memory in mild Alzheimer's disease and early Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychology. 2003;17(2):230.
Barch DM. Pharmacological manipulation of human working memory. Psychopharmacology. 2004;174(1):126–35.
Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, King P, et al. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5(5):421–5.
Morrison AB, Chein JM. Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011;18(1):46–60.
Bestmann S, de Berker AO, Bonaiuto J. Understanding the behavioural consequences of noninvasive brain stimulation. Trends Cogn Sci. 2015;19(1):13–20.
Dayan E, Censor N, Buch ER, Sandrini M, Cohen LG. Noninvasive brain stimulation: from physiology to network dynamics and back. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(7):838–44. Authors provide a review of research outlining our current understanding of the mechanisms that underlie transcranial electrical stimulation and their effects on behavior.
Bindman LJ, Lippold OCJ, Redfearn JWT. The action of brief polarizing currents on the cerebral cortex of the rat (1) during current flow and (2) in the production of long‐lasting after‐effects. J Physiol. 1964;172(3):369–82.
Albert DJ. The effects of polarizing currents on the consolidation of learning. Neuropsychologia. 1966;4(1):65–77.
Utz KS, Dimova V, Oppenländer K, Kerkhoff G. Electrified minds: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsychology—a review of current data and future implications. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(10):2789–810.
Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001;57(10):1899–901.
Park SH, Seo JH, Kim YH, Ko MH. Long-term effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with computer-assisted cognitive training in healthy older adults. Neuroreport. 2014;25(2):122–6.
Jones KT, Stephens JA, Alam M, Bikson M, Berryhill ME. Longitudinal neurostimulation in older adults improves working memory. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0121904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121904.
Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, Priori A, Lang N, Antal A, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimul. 2008;1(3):206–23.
Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527(3):633–9.
Jacobson L, Koslowsky M, Lavidor M. tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review. Exp Brain Res. 2012;216(1):1–10.
Russo R, Wallace D, Fitzgerald PB, Cooper NR. Perception of comfort during active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation: a double blind study. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(6):946–51.
Palm U, Reisinger E, Keeser D, Kuo MF, Pogarell O, Leicht G, et al. Evaluation of sham transcranial direct current stimulation for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(4):690–5.
Krishnan C, Santos L, Peterson MD, Ehinger M. Safety of noninvasive brain stimulation in children and adolescents. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(1):76–87.
Brunoni AR, Amadera J, Berbel B, Volz MS, Rizzerio BG, Fregni F. A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;14(8):1133–45.
Andrews SC, Hoy KE, Enticott PG, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB. Improving working memory: the effect of combining cognitive activity and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Brain Stimul. 2011;4(2):84–9.
Berryhill ME, Wencil EB, Coslett HB, Olson IR. A selective working memory impairment after transcranial direct current stimulation to the right parietal lobe. Neurosci Lett. 2010;479(3):312–6.
Boehringer A, Macher K, Dukart J, Villringer A, Pleger B. Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation modulates verbal working memory. Brain Stimul. 2012;6(4):649–53.
Carvalho S, Boggio PS, Gonçalves OF, Vigário AR, Faria M, Silva S, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation based metaplasticity protocols in working memory. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(2):289–94. This study systematically examined the effects of tDCS on working memory using varying stimulation protocols. Findings from this research suggest that tDCS-related polarity effects are influenced by previous levels of activity.
De Putter LM, Vanderhasselt MA, Baeken C, De Raedt R, Koster EH. Combining tDCS and working memory training to down regulate state rumination: a single-session double blind sham-controlled trial. Cogn Ther Res. 2015;39(6):754–65.
Fregni F, Boggio PS, Nitsche M, Bermpohl F, Antal A, Feredoes E, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Exp Brain Res. 2005;166(1):23–30.
Giglia G, Brighina F, Rizzo S, Puma A, Indovino S, Maccora S, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances memory-guided responses in a visuospatial working memory task. Funct Neurol. 2014;29(3):189.
Gladwin TE, den Uyl TE, Fregni FF, Wiers RW. Enhancement of selective attention by tDCS: interaction with interference in a Sternberg task. Neurosci Lett. 2012;512(1):33–7.
Hoy KE, Emonson MR, Arnold SL, Thomson RH, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB. Testing the limits: investigating the effect of tDCS dose on working memory enhancement in healthy controls. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51(9):1777–84.
Jeon SY, Han SJ. Improvement of the working memory and naming by transcranial direct current stimulation. Ann Rehabil Med. 2012;36(5):585–95.
Keeser D, Padberg F, Reisinger E, Pogarell O, Kirsch V, Palm U, et al. Prefrontal direct current stimulation modulates resting EEG and event-related potentials in healthy subjects: a standardized low resolution tomography (sLORETA) study. Neuroimage. 2011;55(2):644–57.
Kim JH, Kim DW, Chang WH, Kim YH, Kim K, Im CH. Inconsistent outcomes of transcranial direct current stimulation may originate from anatomical differences among individuals: electric field simulation using individual MRI data. Neurosci Lett. 2014;564:6–10. Authors used individual structural MRI and current flow modeling to account for differences in tDCS efficacy across groups.
Marshall L, Mölle M, Siebner HR, Born J. Bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation slows reaction time in a working memory task. BMC Neurosci. 2005;6(1):23.
Martin DM, Liu R, Alonzo A, Green M, Loo CK. Use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to enhance cognitive training: effect of timing of stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(10):3345–51.
Meiron O, Lavidor M. Unilateral prefrontal direct current stimulation effects are modulated by working memory load and gender. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(3):440–7.
Mulquiney PG, Hoy KE, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB. Improving working memory: exploring the effect of transcranial random noise stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(12):2384–9.
Mylius V, Jung M, Menzler K, Haag A, Khader PH, Oertel WH, et al. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on pain perception and working memory. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(7):974–82.
Nikolin S, Loo CK, Bai S, Dokos S, Martin DM. Focalised stimulation using high definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) to investigate declarative verbal learning and memory functioning. NeuroImage. 2015;117:11–9.
Ohn SH, Park CI, Yoo WK, Ko MH, Choi KP, Kim GM, et al. Time-dependent effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on the enhancement of working memory. Neuroreport. 2008;19(1):43–7.
Sandrini M, Fertonani A, Cohen LG, Miniussi C. Double dissociation of working memory load effects induced by bilateral parietal modulation. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(3):396–402.
Sellers KK, Mellin JM, Lustenberger CM, Boyle MR, Lee WH, Peterchev AV, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of frontal cortex decreases performance on the WAIS-IV intelligence test. Behav Brain Res. 2015;290:32–44.
Teo F, Hoy KE, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB. Investigating the role of current strength in tDCS modulation of working memory performance in healthy controls. Front Psychiatry. 2011;2:45.
Weigand A, Richtermeier A, Feeser M, Guo JS, Briesemeister BB, Grimm S, et al. State-dependent effects of prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on emotional working memory. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(6):905–12.
Wu YJ, Tseng P, Chang CF, Pai MC, Hsu KS, Lin CC, et al. Modulating the interference effect on spatial working memory by applying transcranial direct current stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Brain Cogn. 2014;91:87–94.
Xu J, Healy SM, Truong DQ, Datta A, Bikson M, Potenza MN. A feasibility study of bilateral anodal stimulation of the prefrontal cortex using high-definition electrodes in healthy participants. Yale J Biol Med. 2015;88(3):219.
Zaehle T, Sandmann P, Thorne JD, Jäncke L, Herrmann CS. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex modulates working memory performance: combined behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. BMC neuroscience. 2011;12:2.
Lally N, Nord CL, Walsh V, Roiser JP. Does excitatory fronto-extracerebral tDCS lead to improved working memory performance? F1000Research. 2013;2:219.
Martin DM, Liu R, Alonzo A, Green M, Player MJ, Sachdev P, et al. Can transcranial direct current stimulation enhance outcomes from cognitive training? A randomized controlled trial in healthy participants. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;16(9):1927–36.
Motohashi N, Yamaguchi M, Fujii T, Kitahara Y. Mood and cognitive function following repeated transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy volunteers: a preliminary report. Neurosci Res. 2013;77(1):64–9.
Richmond LL, Wolk D, Chein J, Olson IR. Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances verbal working memory training performance over time and near transfer outcomes. J Cogn Neurosci. 2014;26(11):2443–54.
Berryhill ME, Jones KT. tDCS selectively improves working memory in older adults with more education. Neurosci Lett. 2012;521(2):148–51.
Nilsson J, Lebedev AV, Lövdén M. No significant effect of prefrontal tDCS on working memory performance in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:230.
Seo MH, Park SH, Seo JH, Kim YH, Ko MH. Improvement of the working memory by transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy older adults. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2011;35(2):201–6.
Boggio PS, Khoury LP, Martins DC, Martins OE, De Macedo EC, Fregni F. Temporal cortex direct current stimulation enhances performance on a visual recognition memory task in Alzheimer disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80(4):444–7.
Moreno ML, Vanderhasselt MA, Carvalho AF, Moffa AH, Lotufo PA, Benseñor IM, et al. Effects of acute transcranial direct current stimulation in hot and cold working memory tasks in healthy and depressed subjects. Neurosci Lett. 2015;591:126–31.
Oliveira JF, Zanao TA, Valiengo L, Lotufo PA, Benseñor IM, Fregni F, et al. Acute working memory improvement after tDCS in antidepressant-free patients with major depressive disorder. Neurosci Lett. 2013;537:60–4.
Ferrucci R, Bortolomasi M, Vergari M, Tadini L, Salvoro B, Giacopuzzi M, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation in severe, drug-resistant major depression. J Affect Disord. 2009;118(1):215–9.
Fregni F, Boggio PS, Nitsche MA, Rigonatti SP, Pascual‐Leone A. Cognitive effects of repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with depression. Depress Anxiety. 2006;23(8):482–4.
Loo CK, Sachdev P, Martin D, Pigot M, Alonzo A, Malhi GS, et al. A double-blind, sham-controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;13(1):61–9.
Loo CK, Alonzo A, Martin D, Mitchell PB, Galvez V, Sachdev P. Transcranial direct current stimulation for depression: 3-week, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(1):52–9.
Salehinejad MA, Rostami R, Ghanavati E. Transcranial direct current stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in major depression: improving visual working memory, reducing depressive symptoms. NeuroRegulation. 2015;2(1):37.
Boggio PS, Ferrucci R, Rigonatti SP, Covre P, Nitsche M, Pascual-Leone A, et al. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci. 2006;249(1):31–8.
Hoy KE, Arnold SL, Emonson MR, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB. An investigation into the effects of tDCS dose on cognitive performance over time in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2014;155(1):96–100.
Smith RC, Boules S, Mattiuz S, Youssef M, Tobe RH, Sershen H, et al. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognition, symptoms, and smoking in schizophrenia: a randomized controlled study. Schizophr Res. 2015;168(1):260–6.
Jo JM, Kim YH, Ko MH, Ohn SH, Joen B, Lee KH. Enhancing the working memory of stroke patients using tDCS. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(5):404–9.
Ulam F, Shelton C, Richards L, Davis L, Hunter B, Fregni F, et al. Cumulative effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on EEG oscillations and attention/working memory during subacute neurorehabilitation of traumatic brain injury. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(3):486–96.
Liu A, Bryant A, Jefferson A, Friedman D, Minhas P, Barnard S, et al. Exploring the efficacy of a 5-day course of transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) on depression and memory function in patients with well-controlled temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2016;55:11–20.
Datta A, Bansal V, Diaz J, Patel J, Reato D, Bikson M. Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimul. 2009;2(4):201–7.
Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA. Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist. 2011;17(1):37–53.
Nitsche, M. A., Kuo, M. F., Paulus, W., & Antal, A. (2015). Transcranial direct current stimulation: protocols and physiological mechanisms of action. In Textbook of Neuromodulation (pp. 101-111). Springer New York.
Summers JJ, Kang N, Cauraugh JH. Does transcranial direct current stimulation enhance cognitive and motor functions in the ageing brain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2016;25:42–54. To date, this is the most comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the effects of tDCS on older adults.
Witte AV, Kürten J, Jansen S, Schirmacher A, Brand E, Sommer J, et al. Interaction of BDNF and COMT polymorphisms on paired-associative stimulation-induced cortical plasticity. J Neurosci. 2012;32(13):4553–61.
Peña-Gómez C, Sala-Lonch R, Junqué C, Clemente IC, Vidal D, Bargalló N, et al. Modulation of large-scale brain networks by transcranial direct current stimulation evidenced by resting-state functional MRI. Brain Stimul. 2012;5(3):252–63.
Polanía R, Paulus W, Nitsche MA. Modulating cortico‐striatal and thalamo‐cortical functional connectivity with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33(10):2499–508.
Edwards D, Cortes M, Datta A, Minhas P, Wassermann EM, Bikson M. Physiological and modeling evidence for focal transcranial electrical brain stimulation in humans: a basis for high-definition tDCS. Neuroimage. 2013;74:266–75.
Zito GA, Senti T, Cazzoli D, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, Nyffeler T, et al. Cathodal HD-tDCS on the right V5 improves motion perception in humans. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;9:257.
Herrmann CS, Rach S, Neuling T, Strüber D. Transcranial alternating current stimulation: a review of the underlying mechanisms and modulation of cognitive processes. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:279.
Hoy KE, Bailey N, Arnold S, Windsor K, John J, Daskalakis ZJ, et al. The effect of γ-tACS on working memory performance in healthy controls. Brain Cogn. 2015;101:51–6.
Kuo MF, Nitsche MA. Exploring prefrontal cortex functions in healthy humans by transcranial electrical stimulation. Neurosci Bull. 2015;31(2):198–206.
Paulus W. Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES - tDCS; tRNS, tACS) methods. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21:602–17. doi:10.1080/09602011.2011.557292.
Chaieb L, Antal A, Paulus W. Transcranial random noise stimulation-induced plasticity is NMDA-receptor independent but sodium-channel blocker and benzodiazepines sensitive. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:125.
Herpich F, Melnick M, Huxlin K, Tadin D, Agosta S, Battelli L. Transcranial random noise stimulation enhances visual learning in healthy adults. J Vis. 2015;15(12):40.
Vanneste S, Fregni F, De Ridder D. Head-to-head comparison of transcranial random noise stimulation, transcranial AC stimulation, and transcranial DC stimulation for tinnitus. Front Psychiatry. 2013;4:158.
Jonides J, Lewis RL, Nee DE, Lustig CA, Berman MG, Moore KS. The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:193.
Wechsler D. WAIS-III: administration and scoring manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1997.
Sternberg S. Memory-scanning: mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. Am Sci. 1969;57(4):421–57.
Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O. Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul. 2015;8(3):535–50. An important meta-analysis of single-session tDCS on healthy young adults’ cognitive performance that is the subject of some debate.
Hill AT, Fitzgerald PB, Hoy KE. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory: a systematic review and meta-analysis of findings from healthy and neuropsychiatric populations. Brain Stimul. 2015;9(2):197–208. A recent review and meta-analysis that examines the effects of tDCS on WM, specifically, in both healthy and neuropsychiatric samples.
Brunoni AR, Vanderhasselt MA. Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Cogn. 2014;86:1–9. A meta-analysis focusing specifically on non-invasive brain stimulation of the DLPFC on working memory improvements.
Price AR, Hamilton RH. A re-evaluation of the cognitive effects from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(3):663–5.
Flöel A. tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases. Neuroimage. 2014;85:934–47. Authors provide one of the more wide-ranging reviews of tDCS effects in neuropsychiatric populations.
Burke SN, Barnes CA. Neural plasticity in the ageing brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7(1):30–40.
Teixeira-Santos AC, Nafee T, Sampaio A, Leite J, Carvalho S. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory in healthy older adults: a systematic review. Principles and Practice of Clinical Research. 2015;1(3):73–81. Complementing Summers et al., this review examines the effects of tDCS in older adults only on measures of working memory.
Tremblay S, Lepage JF, Latulipe-Loiselle A, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A, Théoret H. The uncertain outcome of prefrontal tDCS. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(6):773–83. This comprehensive review examines the effects of tDCS to DLPFC on multiple cognitive measures.
Moliadze V, Atalay D, Antal A, Paulus W. Close to threshold transcranial electrical stimulation preferentially activates inhibitory networks before switching to excitation with higher intensities. Brain Stimul. 2012;5(4):505–11.
Lustig, C., & Sarter, M. (2016). Attention and the cholinergic system: relevance to schizophrenia. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences.
Reuter-Lorenz PA, Cappell KA. Neurocognitive aging and the compensation hypothesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2008;17(3):177–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00570.x.
López-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Río-Rodríguez D, Fernández-del-Olmo M. Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(3):372–80.
Wiethoff S, Hamada M, Rothwell JC. Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(3):468–75.
Brunoni AR, Kemp AH, Shiozawa P, Cordeiro Q, Valiengo LCL, Goulart AC, et al. Impact of 5-HTTLPR and BDNF polymorphisms on response to sertraline versus transcranial direct current stimulation: implications for the serotonergic system. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;23(11):1530–40.
Plewnia C, Zwissler B, Längst I, Maurer B, Giel K, Krüger R. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on executive functions: influence of COMT Val/Met polymorphism. Cortex. 2013;49(7):1801–7.
Krause B, Kadosh RC. Not all brains are created equal: the relevance of individual differences in responsiveness to transcranial electrical stimulation. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014;8:25.
Weiner J. Time, love, memory: a great biologist and his quest for the origins of behavior. New York: Knopf; 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Tiffany K. Jantz, Ben Katz, and Dr. Patricia A. Reuter-Lorenz declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Neuromodulation
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jantz, T.K., Katz, B. & Reuter-Lorenz, P.A. Uncertainty and Promise: the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory. Curr Behav Neurosci Rep 3, 109–121 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40473-016-0071-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40473-016-0071-8