Static strength
For the back hang scale test, the results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of stimulation (F1,16 = 3.17, p = 0.021, ηp2 = 0.24), time (F1,16 = 14.02, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.56), and a significant interaction of stimulation × time (F2,32 = 12.33, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.43) on static strength scores. Post hoc comparisons revealed that bilateral anodal premotor tDCS significantly improved static strength as compared to sham tDCS (p = 0.042), but bilateral anodal cerebellar tDCS had no significant effect on static strength as compared to sham tDCS (p = 0.727). No significant difference was observed between the two active stimulation protocols (p = 0.539). Post hoc comparisons of static strength showed no significant difference between conditions in the pre-intervention measurements (PM vs sham (t = − 0.735, p = 0.473), CB vs sham (t = − 0.891, p = 0.386), PM vs CB (t = 0.293, p = 0.773)). Also comparisons between pre-to post intervention conditions showed no significant differences in the sham stimulation condition (t = 1.23, p = 0.236), but significant performance enhancements in the premotor (t =  − 7.09, p < 0.001), and cerebellar stimulation conditions (t =  − 3.51, p = 0.003).