Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

The Time Course of Ineffective Sham Blinding During 1mA tDCS

View through CrossRef
AbstractBackgroundStudies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare the effects of an active (10-30min) relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol. Both active and sham tDCS are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double-blinded experimental designs. However, participants often show above-chance accuracy when asked which condition involved active/sham retrospectively.Objective/HypothesisWe aimed to assess the time course of sham-blinding during active and sham tDCS. We predicted that 1) Participants will be aware that the current is switched on for a longer duration in the active versus the sham protocol, 2) Active anodal tDCS will reduce reaction times more effectively than sham.Methods32 adults were tested in a pre-registered, double-blinded, within-subjects design. A forced-choice reaction time task was undertaken before, during and after active (10min 1mA) and sham (20s 1mA) tDCS. The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (C3) to target the right hand, and the cathode on the right forehead. Two probe questions were asked every 30s: “Is the stimulation on? “and “How sure are you?”.ResultsDistinct periods of non-overlapping confidence intervals were identified between the active and sham conditions, totalling 5min (57.1% of the total difference in stimulation time). These began immediately after sham ramp-down and lasted until the active protocol had ended. Active tDCS had no effect on reaction times compared to sham (ΔRT active vs sham p>0.38 in all blocks).ConclusionsWe show a failure of placebo control during low-intensity tDCS.
Title: The Time Course of Ineffective Sham Blinding During 1mA tDCS
Description:
AbstractBackgroundStudies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare the effects of an active (10-30min) relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol.
Both active and sham tDCS are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double-blinded experimental designs.
However, participants often show above-chance accuracy when asked which condition involved active/sham retrospectively.
Objective/HypothesisWe aimed to assess the time course of sham-blinding during active and sham tDCS.
We predicted that 1) Participants will be aware that the current is switched on for a longer duration in the active versus the sham protocol, 2) Active anodal tDCS will reduce reaction times more effectively than sham.
Methods32 adults were tested in a pre-registered, double-blinded, within-subjects design.
A forced-choice reaction time task was undertaken before, during and after active (10min 1mA) and sham (20s 1mA) tDCS.
The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (C3) to target the right hand, and the cathode on the right forehead.
Two probe questions were asked every 30s: “Is the stimulation on? “and “How sure are you?”.
ResultsDistinct periods of non-overlapping confidence intervals were identified between the active and sham conditions, totalling 5min (57.
1% of the total difference in stimulation time).
These began immediately after sham ramp-down and lasted until the active protocol had ended.
Active tDCS had no effect on reaction times compared to sham (ΔRT active vs sham p>0.
38 in all blocks).
ConclusionsWe show a failure of placebo control during low-intensity tDCS.

Related Results

Abstract TP142: Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Stimulation to Augment Aphasia Therapy
Abstract TP142: Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Stimulation to Augment Aphasia Therapy
Introduction: Previous studies indicate that anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (A-tDCS) to left hemisphere or cathodal tDCS (C-tDCS) to right hemisphere mi...
Robust enhancement of motor sequence learning with 4mA transcranial electric stimulation
Robust enhancement of motor sequence learning with 4mA transcranial electric stimulation
AbstractBackground and ObjectivesMotor learning experiments with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at 2mA have produced mixed results. We hypothesize that tDCS will bo...
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Management of Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Management of Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review
BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain (NP) is common and often resistant to conventional analgesics. Among different types of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques, transcranial direct c...
Therapeutic Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review
Therapeutic Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review
AbstractObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic and disabling psychiatric condition characterized by intrusive obsessions and compulsive behaviors. Although pharmacotherap...
Transcranial direct current stimulation does not enhance cycling time-trial performance
Transcranial direct current stimulation does not enhance cycling time-trial performance
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the primary motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) have separately been shown to increase performance during...
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS).
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS).
Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) is a neuromodulatory device that is used for its ability to enhance cognitive and behavioral performance. Human studies suggest that ...

Back to Top