Non-invasive brain stimulation research in South Korea: Current trends, challenges, and future directions
Seongmin Choi
, Won Kee Chang
, Won-Seok Kim
, Nam-Jong Paik
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
Keywords: Non-invasive brain stimulation, parkinsonism, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, traumatic brain injury, stroke.
Abstract
Objectives: In this review, we summarize the development, current landscape, and future directions of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) research in South Korea.
Materials and methods: A narrative review of South Korean studies investigating repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and parkinsonism was conducted in the PubMed database. No date restrictions were applied. Eligible studies included randomized- and non-randomized-controlled trials, pilot studies, and pre-post designs that reported outcomes in motor, cognitive, swallowing, and language functions. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed without time restrictions and was limited to peer-reviewed publications in English.
Results: As of 2006, 88 studies were identified in the literature search. Most studies (n=40) focused on motor rehabilitation after stroke, primarily targeting upper limb function, gait, and balance. Both rTMS and tDCS demonstrated efficacy, with recent studies integrating tDCS with virtual reality and robot-assisted therapies. Despite promising findings, a large randomized-controlled trial failed to show significant improvement in upper limb function with rTMS. Subgroup analysis indicated efficacy in patients without cortical involvement. A new study focusing on subcortical stroke populations was ongoing at the time of this review. Studies on post-stroke cognition (n=20) primarily conducted between 2008 and 2015 addressed visuospatial neglect, memory, and attention. Although only a few recent studies exist, an emerging trial on home-based tDCS suggests its potential for remote cognitive rehabilitation. In patients with parkinsonism (n=13), rTMS improved freezing of gait and gait dysfunction, whereas tDCS studies have recently been expanded to address dual-task performance. Research on dysphagia (n=7) and aphasia (n=5) in stroke patients reported favorable outcomes. Studies on TBI (n=3) remain limited and primarily target cognitive and swallowing functions.
Conclusion: Studies of NIBS in South Korea have usually reported positive outcomes across a range of functional domains. Recent research indicates a shift toward individualized and technology-assisted approaches, including homebased tDCS and rTMS guided by functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Future investigations should focus on the development and evaluation of adaptive, personalized NIBS strategies to optimize therapeutic efficacy.
Citation:
Choi S, Chang WK, Kim WS, Paik NJ. Non-invasive brain stimulation research in South Korea: Current trends, challenges, and future directions. Arch ISPRM 2026;1(1):49-66. https://doi.org/10.5606/archisprm.2026.13.
N.J.P., W.S.K.: Designed research; S.C., W.K.C.: Conducted research and extracted data, analyzed data; S.C.: Wrote the manuscript; N.J.P.: Was primarily responsible for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
This research was supported by the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. RS-2024-00356694).
Data Availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
AI Disclosure
The authors declare that artificial intelligence (AI) tools were not used, or were used solely for language editing, and had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or the formulation of conclusions. All scientific content, data interpretation, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors further confirm that AI tools were not used to generate, fabricate, or ‘hallucinate’ references, and that all references have been carefully verified for accuracy.