Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been reported to improve working memory (WM) performance in healthy individuals, suggesting its value as a means of cognitive enhancement. However, recent meta-analyses concluded that tDCS has little or no effect on WM in healthy participants. In this article, we review reasons why these meta-analyses may have underestimated the effect of tDCS on WM and report a more comprehensive and arguably more sensitive meta-analysis. Consistent with our interest in enhancement, we focused on anodal stimulation. Thirty-one articles matched inclusion criteria and were included in four primary meta-analyses assessing the WM effects of anodal stimulation over the left and right dorsolateral pFC (DLPFC) and right parietal lobe as well as left DLPFC stimulation coupled with WM training. These analyses revealed a small but significant effect of left DLPFC stimulation coupled with WM training. Left DLPFC stimulation alone also enhanced WM performance, but the effect was reduced to nonsignificance after correction for publication bias. No other effects were significant, including a variety of tested moderators. Additional meta-analyses were undertaken with study selection criteria based on previous meta-analyses, to reassess the findings from these studies using the analytic methods of this study. These analyses revealed a mix of significant and nonsignificant small effects. We conclude that the primary WM enhancement potential of tDCS probably lies in its use during training.

The use of prescription stimulants to enhance healthy cognition has significant social, ethical, and public health implications. The large number of enhancement users across various ages and occupations emphasizes the importance of examining these drugs' efficacy in a nonclinical sample. The present meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the magnitude of the effects of methylphenidate and amphetamine on cognitive functions central to academic and occupational functioning, including inhibitory control, working memory, short-term episodic memory, and delayed episodic memory. In addition, we examined the evidence for publication bias. Forty-eight studies (total of 1,409 participants) were included in the analyses. We found evidence for small but significant stimulant enhancement effects on inhibitory control and short-term episodic memory. Small effects on working memory reached significance, based on one of our two analytical approaches. Effects on delayed episodic memory were medium in size. However, because the effects on long-term and working memory were qualified by evidence for publication bias, we conclude that the effect of amphetamine and methylphenidate on the examined facets of healthy cognition is probably modest overall. In some situations, a small advantage may be valuable, although it is also possible that healthy users resort to stimulants to enhance their energy and motivation more than their cognition.