rethinkTHC Search
Menu
Study breakdown

Brain stimulation was safe for cannabis craving but adding visual cannabis cues did not improve results

Randomized Controlled TrialPreliminary evidence
The takeaway

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation showed promise for reducing cannabis craving, but combining it with cannabis cue exposure did not add benefit over stimulation alone.

Addiction researchers, neuromodulation specialists, clinicians treating cannabis use disorder

91.7% completion rate but only 19.6% of eligible patients agreed to participate

What the researchers found

All groups showed reduced cannabis craving, frequency, and improved cognition; anodal right DLPFC HD-tDCS was safe with high completion rates (91.7%); cue exposure did not add to the effect of stimulation.

Why it matters

Non-invasive brain stimulation represents a potential medication-free treatment for cannabis use disorder, though optimal protocols still need refinement.

The numbers in context

48 participants; 4 groups of 12; 19.6% acceptance rate; 91.7% completion rate; craving reductions sustained at 4-week follow-up in all groups except sham + cue; cannabis use frequency and amount reduced in all groups.

How the study worked

Double-blind RCT; 48 participants with cannabis use disorder randomized to 4 groups (tDCS + cue, tDCS + neutral, sham + cue, sham + neutral); 6 sessions; craving assessed post-treatment and at 4-week follow-up.

What this study cannot tell us

Small sample (48 total, 12 per group); low acceptance rate (19.6%); all groups improved, making it difficult to isolate specific effects; no long-term follow-up beyond 4 weeks.

How to read the evidence

Randomized double-blind design provides methodological rigor, but small sample size and improvements across all groups (including sham) limit conclusions about specific efficacy.

When this study was published

Published 2025

The bigger picture

Brain stimulation therapies for substance use disorders are advancing, and this pilot suggests tDCS targeting the right DLPFC is safe and feasible for cannabis use disorder.

Questions still open

  • Why did sham groups also improve? Would more sessions or different stimulation parameters produce stronger between-group differences? Can acceptance rates be improved for clinical translation?

Common questions

Did brain stimulation reduce cannabis craving?
All groups showed craving reductions, including sham groups, making it difficult to attribute effects specifically to stimulation versus other factors like study participation.
Was the treatment safe?
Yes. Adverse effects and dropout rates did not differ between active and sham stimulation groups, and 91.7% of enrolled participants completed all sessions.

Read the original research

Acceptability, Feasibility, and Effectiveness of Concurrent High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Cue Exposure in Cannabis Use Disorder: A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

The journal of ECT, 41(2), 126-135

Citation

Chauhan, Devika; Ghosh, Abhishek; Naik, Shalini S; Rana, Devender K; Singh, Shubh Mohan. (2025). Acceptability, Feasibility, and Effectiveness of Concurrent High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Cue Exposure in Cannabis Use Disorder: A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.. The journal of ECT, 41(2), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000001087

Explore the wider topic