Effects of single‐session transcranial direct current stimulation on response inhibition in stop‐signal task performance: A meta‐analysis and systematic review
Qiuxuan Yu, Mingyue Zhang, Ximei Zhu, Sanwang Wang, Tingting Wu, Yinjiao Li, Wenrong Wen, Yanping Bao, Jie Shi, Lin Lu, Jiahui DengABSTRACT
Background
Response inhibition is a fundamental component of executive control and a transdiagnostic mechanism underpinning numerous mental disorders. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a potential neuromodulatory intervention to enhance response inhibition; however, findings remain inconsistent due to methodological heterogeneity in stimulation parameters and outcome measures.
Aims
To quantitatively evaluate the effects of tDCS on response inhibition as measured by the stop‐signal task (SST) and to explore potential moderators influencing tDCS efficacy.
Methods
This meta‐analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses. We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus up to 1 April 2026. Quality assessment was conducted utilising the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool, with random‐effects meta‐analysis, moderator and subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis for statistical evaluation.
Results
The search yielded 2982 articles, of which 35 were considered eligible for inclusion, including 1768 participants. The risk of bias 2 assessment indicated acceptable methodological quality, with the majority of studies rated as low risk of bias or as having some concerns. The overall effect of tDCS on response inhibition was modest yet statistically significant (Hedges' g = −0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.34 to −0.11, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated a small‐to‐moderate effect of anodal tDCS (Hedges' g = −0.38, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.26, p < 0.001), especially when targeting the right inferior frontal gyrus, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or motor‐related cortex; additionally, online tDCS demonstrated greater efficacy than offline tDCS. Cathodal tDCS demonstrated a small but statistically significant detrimental effect on response inhibition (Hedges' g = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03–0.35, p = 0.023).
Conclusions
Our findings support the potential of anodal tDCS as a neuromodulatory approach for enhancing response inhibition. The polarity‐, target‐ and timing‐specific effects highlight key methodological considerations for optimising tDCS protocols in research on response inhibition impairments.
PROSPERO Registration Number
CRD42024565038.