Literature DB >> 30227147

Expectations may influence the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Sheida Rabipour1, Allan D Wu2, Patrick S R Davidson3, Marco Iacoboni4.   

Abstract

Growing interest surrounds transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a safe and inexpensive method for improving cognitive functions and mood. Nevertheless, tDCS studies rarely examine psychological factors such as expectations of outcomes, which may influence tDCS responsiveness through placebo-like effects. Here we sought to evaluate the potential influence of expectations on tDCS intervention outcomes. We assessed expectations of tDCS outcomes in 88 healthy young adults on three occasions: i) at baseline; ii) after reading information implying either high or low effectiveness of stimulation; and iii) after a single-session of sham-controlled anodal tDCS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, during working memory (WM) training. Participants were largely uncertain about the effectiveness of stimulation in improving cognitive function at baseline. High or low expectation priming using simple positive or cautionary messages significantly increased or decreased expectation ratings, respectively, but ratings significantly decreased following stimulation in all groups. We found greater improvement in participants who received high compared to low expectation priming. Participants who received active stimulation and low expectation priming exhibited the lowest performance, suggesting that expectation priming and stimulation may have interacted. We did not find a significant effect of baseline expectations, belief of group assignment, or individual characteristics on measures of WM and verbal fluency. However, controlling for baseline expectations revealed greater post-intervention improvement on the executive function measures in participants who received high (compared to low) expectation priming. People randomly assigned to receive high expectation priming reported having a more pleasant experience overall, including greater satisfaction. Our findings suggest that expectations of outcomes should be taken into account in tDCS-based experimental studies and clinical trials.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expectations; Non-invasive brain stimulation; Placebo; Priming; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Working memory

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30227147     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.09.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  14 in total

1.  Impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on sustained attention in breast cancer survivors: Evidence for feasibility, tolerability, and initial efficacy.

Authors:  Alexandra M Gaynor; Denise Pergolizzi; Yesne Alici; Elizabeth Ryan; Katrazyna McNeal; Tim A Ahles; James C Root
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on food craving and eating when using a control method that minimizes guessing of the real vs. control condition.

Authors:  Carl E Stevens; Marissa A Lausen; Laura E Wagstaff; Tommy R McRae; Bethany R Pittman; Franklin R Amthor; Mary M Boggiano
Journal:  Eat Weight Disord       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 4.652

3.  The effect of expectation on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to suppress food craving and eating in individuals with overweight and obesity.

Authors:  Mary Katherine Ray; Maria D Sylvester; Alexis Helton; Bethany R Pittman; Laura E Wagstaff; Tommy R McRae; Bulent Turan; Kevin R Fontaine; Franklin R Amthor; Mary M Boggiano
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 3.868

4.  Offline tDCS modulates prefrontal-cortical-subcortical-cerebellar fear pathways in delayed fear extinction.

Authors:  Ana Ganho-Ávila; Raquel Guiomar; Daniela Valério; Óscar F Gonçalves; Jorge Almeida
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  The time course of ineffective sham-blinding during low-intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Robert Greinacher; Larissa Buhôt; Lisa Möller; Gemma Learmonth
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.386

6.  Acceptability of tDCS in treating stress-related mental health disorders: a mixed methods study among military patients and caregivers.

Authors:  Fenne M Smits; Guido J de Kort; Elbert Geuze
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 3.630

7.  Improving cognition in severe mental illness by combining cognitive remediation and transcranial direct current stimulation: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled pilot trial (HEADDSET).

Authors:  Anika Poppe; Leonie Bais; Daniëlle van Duin; Branislava Ćurčić-Blake; Gerdina Hendrika Maria Pijnenborg; Lisette van der Meer
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Comparison of two tDCS protocols on pain and EEG alpha-2 oscillations in women with fibromyalgia.

Authors:  Géssika Araújo de Melo; Eliane Araújo de Oliveira; Suellen Mary Marinho Dos Santos Andrade; Bernardino Fernández-Calvo; Nelson Torro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Is the "end-of-study guess" a valid measure of sham blinding during transcranial direct current stimulation?

Authors:  Christopher Turner; Catherine Jackson; Gemma Learmonth
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 3.386

10.  Acute effect of high-definition and conventional tDCS on exercise performance and psychophysiological responses in endurance athletes: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel Gomes da Silva Machado; Marom Bikson; Abhishek Datta; Egas Caparelli-Dáquer; Gozde Unal; Abrahão F Baptista; Edilson Serpeloni Cyrino; Li Min Li; Edgard Morya; Alexandre Moreira; Alexandre Hideki Okano
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.