Table 2.

Studies evaluating treatment of neglect by tDCS.

Study	No. of patients	Time post	Sham control	Stimulation site (contra/ipsilesional)	Protocol	No. of sessions	Time of assessment in relation to stimulation	Outcome measures	Main results	Descriptive magnitude of the changes in the main outcome measures
Ko et al. (2008)	15 RH	29–99 d	Yes	Ipsi P4	2.0 mA anodal stimulation for 20 min	1 session	Pre/post	Line bisection test, letter-structured cancelation test, shape-unstructured cancelation test	Sign. effects of real tDCS on line bisection test and shape-unstructured cancelation test	On average: −3.52 percent deviation score in the line bisection test (= ∼ −19%); −3.47 omissions in the shape-unstructured cancelation test (= ∼ −14.8%)
Sparing et al. (2009)	10 RH	0.5–12.4 m	Yes	Contra P3 and ipsi P4	1.0 mA anodal and cathodal stimulation for 10 min	2 sessions, cross-over	Pre/post	Line bisection test, visual detection task	Sign. improvement in line bisection test after anodal tDCS of the lesioned hemisphere and cathodal tDCS of the intact hemisphere	On average: in the line bisection test, from 3.4 mm deviation pre (rightwards bias) to -1.5 mm post (leftward bias) with anodal tDCS on P4; from 5.4 mm pre to −1.7 mm post with cathodal tDCS on P3

w, week; m, month; d, day; MT motor threshold; MMSE, Mini Mental State Examination; BRS, Brunnstrom Recovery Index; BI, Barthel Index; PVT, subtest of the Vienna Test System (detection of peripheral visual targets); CBS, Catherine Bergego Scale; MEP, motor-evoked potential; RH, right hemisphere; LH, left hemisphere; RT, reaction time; K-MBI, Korean-Modified Barthel Index; SEM, standard error of the mean; pts, points.

*These values have been visually inferred from the graphs provided in the respective studies.