Objective: Internally guided actions are defined as being purposeful, self-generated and offering choices between alternatives. Intentional actions are essential to reach individual goals. In previous empirical studies, internally guided actions were predominantly related to functional responses in frontal and parietal areas. The aim of the present study was to distinguish event-related potentials and oscillatory responses of intentional actions and externally guided actions. In addition, we compared neurobiological findings of the decision which action to perform with those referring to the decision whether or not to perform an action.Methods: Twenty-eight subjects participated in adapted go/nogo paradigms, including a voluntary selection condition allowing participants to (1) freely decide whether to press the response button or (2) to decide whether they wanted to press the response button with the right index finger or the left index finger.Results: The reaction times were increased when participants freely decided whether and how they wanted to respond compared to the go condition. Intentional processes were associated with a fronto-centrally located N2 and P3 potential. N2 and P3 amplitudes were increased during intentional actions compared to instructed responses (go). In addition, increased activity in the alpha-, beta- and gamma-frequency range was shown during voluntary behavior rather than during externally guided responses.Conclusion: These results may indicate that an additional cognitive process is needed for intentional actions compared to instructed behavior. However, the neural responses were comparatively independent of the kind of decision that was made (1) decision which action to perform; (2) decision whether or not to perform an action).Significance: The study demonstrates the importance of fronto-central alpha-, beta-, and gamma oscillations for voluntary behavior.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method that has shown promising results in various neuropsychiatric disorders in adults. This review addresses the therapeutic use of tDCS in children and adolescents including safety, ethical, and legal considerations. There are several studies addressing the dosage of tDCS in children and adolescents by computational modeling of electric fields in the pediatric brain. Results suggest halving the amperage used in adults to obtain the same peak electric fields, however, there are some studies reporting on the safe application of tDCS with standard adult parameters in children (2 mA; 20-30 min). There are several randomized placebo controlled trials suggesting beneficial effects of tDCS for the treatment of cerebral palsy. For dystonia there are mixed data. Some studies suggest efficacy of tDCS for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, and for the improvement of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism. Interestingly, there is a lack of data for the treatment of childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders, i.e., childhood onset schizophrenia and affective disorders. Overall, tDCS seems to be safe in pediatric population. More studies are needed to confirm the preliminary encouraging results; however, ethical deliberation has to be weighed carefully for every single case.

Our results indicate that depressed inpatients treated with agomelatine or venlafaxine show a better test performance on tasks related to driving skills than do untreated depressives and could predominantly be rated as fit to drive on an actual driving test prior discharge to outpatient treatment.

No abstract

No abstract