## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline  & **SHAM** & **DLPFC** & **M1** & \\  & **(_n_ = 20)** & **(_n_ = 20)** & **(_n_ = 20)** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline POMS & & & & \\  Tension & \(5\pm 1.8\) & \(5\pm 2.1\) & \(6\pm 1.9\) & 0.489 \\  Depression & \(6\pm 3.8\) & \(5\pm 3.2\) & \(6\pm 3.1\) & 0.721 \\  Anger & \(5\pm 2.0\) & \(5\pm 2.1\) & \(4\pm 1.9\) & 0.234 \\  Vigor & \(17\pm 5.1\) & \(17\pm 5.0\) & \(19\pm 4.4\) & 0.618 \\  Fatigue & \(5\pm 1.6\) & \(4\pm 1.7\) & \(5\pm 1.9\) & 0.069 \\  Confusion & \(2\pm 1.7\) & \(3\pm 1.3\) & \(2\pm 1.6\) & 0.431 \\  BAI & \(5\pm 2.5\) & \(4\pm 2.2\) & \(5\pm 2.5\) & 0.300 \\  PSQI & \(7\pm 2.6\) & \(6\pm 2.9\) & \(6\pm 3.2\) & 0.368 \\ \hline \end{tabular} FOMS: Profile of Mood State; BAI: Beck Anxiety Inventory; PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. SHAM: Control situation. DLPFC: dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. M1: Primary motor cortex  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Results of the POMS, BAI, and PQSI questionnaires. effect [27]. These results support our observation of differentiated effects depending on the stimulated area and provide additional context for understanding how tDCS can be optimized to enhance both physical and cognitive performance across various types of exercises and environmental conditions. In contrast to the studies by [PERSON] et al. [9] and [PERSON] et al. [27], the present study did observe significant modifications in physical performance following stimulation over M1. The primary difference is that in previous studies involving the M1 tDCS setup, the anode was placed symmetrically over the Cz (2.5 cm on each side of M1), targeting the motor area of the lower limb, and the cathode was positioned on the left shoulder. In contrast, the M1 setup in the present study employed a bilateral extracephalic configuration, similar to that previously described in the study by [PERSON] et al. [18]. In that study [18], the application of anodic tDCS over the bilateral motor cortexes not only prolonged the time to failure but also reduced the perception of effort and increased lactate accumulation, indicating an intensification of muscular effort. These findings corroborate our observations of performance improvements when stimulating the M1 area, suggesting that tDCS may enhance the capacity to sustain prolonged and high-intensity efforts. Furthermore, the reduction in perceived effort, coupled with increased corticospinal excitability, provides a plausible interpretation of how neural modulation facilitated by tDCS may enhance sports performance. These effects could reflect an optimization in neuromuscular communication and an increase in pain or fatigue tolerance during demanding physical activities. Therefore, our findings, along with the results from the study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [18], suggest that tDCS, particularly in extracellular settings, represents a promising tool for improving not only physical performance but also the cognitive management of effort in sports that require endurance and moderate levels of coordination. This is particularly relevant for exercises such as the burpe, which require not only a combination of motor skills but also coordination, rhythm, and the ability to integrate multiple movements into a fluid and efficient sequence. It is important to note that, despite the observed effects on physical performance, the present study did not find statistically significant differences in \(\text{SmO}_{2}\) between the different stimulation conditions. This finding suggests that the performance enhancements induced by tDCS may be mediated more by neuromodulatory effects, such as the optimization of cortical function and management of perceived effort, rather than by changes in aerobic capacity or oxygen utilization efficiency. The results of the present study on the effectiveness of tDCS over M1 contrast with findings from other sports disciplines that also involve complex tasks.