Literature DB >> 27369325

Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task.

Filiz Gözenman1, Marian E Berryhill2.   

Abstract

There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. A drawback is that the relationship between stimulation and cognitive outcomes for various tasks are unknown. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides diffuse current spread, whereas high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) provides more targeted current. The direction of behavioral effects after tDCS can be difficult to predict in cognitive realms such as attention and working memory (WM). Previously, we showed that in low and high WM capacity groups tDCS modulates performance in nearly equal and opposite directions on a change detection task, with improvement for the high capacity participants alone. Here, we used the retro-cue paradigm to test attentional shifting among items in WM to investigate whether WM capacity (WMC) predicted different behavioral consequences during anodal tDCS or HD-tDCS to posterior parietal cortex (PPC). In two experiments, with 24 participants each, we used different stimulus categories (colored circles, letters) and stimulation sites (right, left PPC). The results showed a significant (Experiment 1) or trending (Experiment 2) WMC x stimulation interaction. Compared to tDCS, after HD-tDCS the retro-cueing benefit was significantly greater for the low WMC group but numerically worse for the high WMC group. These data highlight the importance of considering group differences when using non-invasive neurostimulation techniques.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Group differences; HD-tDCS; Working memory; Working memory capacity; tDCS

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27369325      PMCID: PMC4983211          DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Lett        ISSN: 0304-3940            Impact factor:   3.046


  47 in total

Review 1.  tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review.

Authors:  Liron Jacobson; Meni Koslowsky; Michal Lavidor
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance.

Authors:  Raquel E London; Heleen A Slagter
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex on exercise-induced pain.

Authors:  Luca Angius; James G Hopker; Samuele M Marcora; Alexis R Mauger
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Asif Rahman; Abhishek Datta
Journal:  Clin EEG Neurosci       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.843

5.  The value and cost of complexity in predictive modelling: role of tissue anisotropic conductivity and fibre tracts in neuromodulation.

Authors:  Syed Salman Shahid; Marom Bikson; Humaira Salman; Peng Wen; Tony Ahfock
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 5.379

6.  A finite element analysis of the effect of electrode area and inter-electrode distance on the spatial distribution of the current density in tDCS.

Authors:  Paula Faria; Mark Hallett; Pedro Cavaleiro Miranda
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation modulates verbal working memory.

Authors:  Andreas Boehringer; Katja Macher; Juergen Dukart; Arno Villringer; Burkhard Pleger
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 8.955

8.  Differential frontal involvement in shifts of internal and perceptual attention.

Authors:  Ryan T Tanoue; Kevin T Jones; Dwight J Peterson; Marian E Berryhill
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 8.955

9.  Parietal contributions to visual working memory depend on task difficulty.

Authors:  Kevin T Jones; Marian E Berryhill
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 4.157

10.  Speech facilitation by left inferior frontal cortex stimulation.

Authors:  Rachel Holland; Alex P Leff; Oliver Josephs; Joseph M Galea; Mahalekshmi Desikan; Cathy J Price; John C Rothwell; Jennifer Crinion
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  13 in total

1.  Effects of HD-tDCS on memory and metamemory for general knowledge questions that vary by difficulty.

Authors:  Elizabeth F Chua; Rifat Ahmed; Sandry M Garcia
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  The neural correlates of flow experience explored with transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Martin Ulrich; Johannes Niemann; Markus Boland; Thomas Kammer; Filip Niemann; Georg Grön
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Individual Differences and State-Dependent Responses in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.

Authors:  Tzu-Yu Hsu; Chi-Hung Juan; Philip Tseng
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 4.  Beyond the target area: an integrative view of tDCS-induced motor cortex modulation in patients and athletes.

Authors:  Edgard Morya; Kátia Monte-Silva; Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Claudinei Eduardo Biazoli; Andre Fonseca; Tommaso Bocci; Faranak Farzan; Raaj Chatterjee; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Daniel Gomes da Silva Machado; André Russowsky Brunoni; Eva Mezger; Luciane Aparecida Moscaleski; Rodrigo Pegado; João Ricardo Sato; Marcelo Salvador Caetano; Kátia Nunes Sá; Clarice Tanaka; Li Min Li; Abrahão Fontes Baptista; Alexandre Hideki Okano
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 4.262

5.  No Interaction between tDCS Current Strength and Baseline Performance: A Conceptual Replication.

Authors:  Gemma Learmonth; Francesca Felisatti; Numaya Siriwardena; Matthew Checketts; Christopher S Y Benwell; Gesine Märker; Gregor Thut; Monika Harvey
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Null Effects on Working Memory and Verbal Fluency Tasks When Applying Anodal tDCS to the Inferior Frontal Gyrus of Healthy Participants.

Authors:  Samuel J Westwood; Cristina Romani
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affects performance in Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).

Authors:  Heng Guo; Zhuoran Zhang; Shu Da; Xiaotian Sheng; Xichao Zhang
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.708

Review 8.  Rigor and reproducibility in research with transcranial electrical stimulation: An NIMH-sponsored workshop.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Andre R Brunoni; Leigh E Charvet; Vincent P Clark; Leonardo G Cohen; Zhi-De Deng; Jacek Dmochowski; Dylan J Edwards; Flavio Frohlich; Emily S Kappenman; Kelvin O Lim; Colleen Loo; Antonio Mantovani; David P McMullen; Lucas C Parra; Michele Pearson; Jessica D Richardson; Judith M Rumsey; Pejman Sehatpour; David Sommers; Gozde Unal; Eric M Wassermann; Adam J Woods; Sarah H Lisanby
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 8.955

9.  tACS entrains neural activity while somatosensory input is blocked.

Authors:  Pedro G Vieira; Matthew R Krause; Christopher C Pack
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) over the Intraparietal Sulcus Does Not Influence Working Memory Performance.

Authors:  Romain Dumont; Steve Majerus; Michel Hansenne
Journal:  Psychol Belg       Date:  2021-07-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.