Brain Stimulation as a Treatment for Apathy: A Scoping Review of Effects and Safety

Published October 20, 2026. A broad review found the most consistent promising apathy findings for rTMS in Alzheimer disease, with positive trends in several other conditions. Results for tDCS and deep brain stimulation were more variable. This maps a developing field rather than proving that one approach works across diagnoses.

Grewal P, Seidman MB, Chasen J, Lench D, Dickens I, Brennan EA, Rodriguez-Porcel F, Kindred J, George MS, Kautz S, Caulfield KA, McTeague LM.
The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences · Publication date: 2026-10-20
Added to site: 2026-10-21
DOI: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20250297

Published online October 20, 2026. Added to Neurofeedback.com October 21, 2026.

Modalities

rTMS, tDCS, tACS, PEMF, Brain stimulation

Clinical focus

Apathy, Neuropsychiatric conditions, Safety

Population

People with apathy across neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses

Sample

52 primary studies, including 1,366 participants; 10 systematic reviews or meta-analyses were synthesized separately

Intervention / method

Literature search of PubMed, Scopus and PsycInfo across invasive and noninvasive brain-stimulation modalities

Comparator

Heterogeneous comparators across included studies; no pooled efficacy comparison

Clinician summary

The review included 26 rTMS, seven DBS, six tDCS and one study each of ECT, tACS and transcranial pulsating electromagnetic field therapy. Reported adverse events were mild and modality specific. Small samples, heterogeneous designs, variable outcome measures and nonpooled evidence limit comparative inference.

How to interpret the findings

This was a scoping review, not a pooled effect estimate or certainty-graded efficacy synthesis. Diagnoses, stimulation methods, controls and apathy measures varied substantially, and several modalities were represented by very few studies.

Equipment and disclosures

The review covered multiple systems and did not identify one manufacturer in the abstract. No BrainMaster attribution is made.

Funding and conflict details were not available in the checked abstract or retained PubMed record. No correction, retraction or concern relation appeared in the retained Crossref record; this is a bounded check. AI-assisted review.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.

• Safety and feasibility of accelerated deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for stimulant use disorder: A pilot study · Mixed
• Effects and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive outcomes in mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis · Positive with limitations