. 2021 Dec 31;12(1):58. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12010058

Table A1.

tDCS effects on memory performance (Experiments 1–4).

Study	Comparison	Memory Task	Accuracy ¹			RT ¹
Study	Comparison	Memory Task	F	p	η_p²	BF₁₀	F	p	η_p²	BF₁₀
Experiment 1	Left PPC vs. sham	Face–word	5.446	0.031	0.223	2.419
Experiment 2	Right PPC vs. sham	Object–location	4.516	0.046	0.184	2.565
Experiment 3	Left DLPFC vs. sham	Verbal 3-back	0.110	0.744	0.005	0.314	5.355	0.031	0.211	2.039
	Left DLPFC vs. sham	Spatial 3-back	0.355	0.558	0.017	0.343	0.001	0.975	0.000	0.304
	Left PPC vs. sham	Verbal 3-back	2.872	0.106	0.126	0.901	2.275	0.147	0.102	0.703
	Left PPC vs. sham	Spatial 3-back	6.176	0.022	0.236	2.540	0.103	0.715	0.005	0.313
Experiment 4	Right DLPFC vs. sham	Verbal 3-back	7.179	0.014	0.264	3.484	7.856	0.011	0.282	4.680
	Right DLPFC vs. sham	Spatial 3-back	3.354	0.082	0.144	1.076	2.817	0.109	0.123	0.924
	Right PPC vs. sham	Verbal 3-back	3.924	0.062	0.164	1.241	6.252	0.021	0.238	2.667
	Right PPC vs. sham	Spatial 3-back	1.526	0.231	0.071	0.551	1.697	0.207	0.078	0.582

¹ Significant effects (p < 0.05) are marked in bold. For Experiments 1 and 2, the analyses were run on the average AM scores from the first and second learning blocks; while for Experiments 3 and 4, we used the number of hits and reaction time as outcome measures. As in the original analyses, the WM hits scores were centered on the order of the session to control for practice effects.