Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex does not enhance the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules

Abstract

A distinct learning advantage has been shown when participants control their knowledge of results (KR) scheduling during practice compared to when the same KR schedule is imposed on the learner without choice (i.e., yoked schedules). Although the learning advantages of self-controlled KR schedules are well-documented, the brain regions contributing to these advantages remain unknown. Identifying key brain regions would not only advance our theoretical understanding of the mechanisms underlying self-controlled learning advantages, but would also highlight regions that could be targeted in more applied settings to boost the already beneficial effects of self-controlled KR schedules. Here, we investigated whether applying anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the primary motor cortex (M1) would enhance the typically found benefits of learning a novel motor skill with a self-controlled KR schedule. Participants practiced a spatiotemporal task in one of four groups using a factorial combination of KR schedule (self-controlled vs. yoked) and tDCS (anodal vs. sham). Testing occurred on two consecutive days with spatial and temporal accuracy measured on both days and learning was assessed using 24-h retention and transfer tests without KR. All groups improved their performance in practice and a significant effect for practicing with a self-controlled KR schedule compared to a yoked schedule was found for temporal accuracy in transfer, but a similar advantage was not evident in retention. There were no significant differences as a function of KR schedule or tDCS for spatial accuracy in retention or transfer. The lack of a significant tDCS effect suggests that M1 may not strongly contribute to self-controlled KR learning advantages; however, caution is advised with this interpretation as typical self-controlled learning benefits were not strongly replicated in the present experiment.

Modulating Activity in the Prefrontal Cortex Changes Intertemporal Choice for Loss: A Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Study

“…Right anodal/left cathodal tDCS stimulation triggered no causal effects on people’s intertemporal choices regarding losses. The current study and numerous tDCS studies from the field of self-control and aggression (Kelley et al, 2013; Riva et al, 2014; Pripfl and Lamm, 2015; Carter et al, 2018) demonstrate the potential of this tool in affecting human behavior.…”

The recommendation for learners to be provided with control over their feedback schedule is questioned in a self-controlled learning paradigm

“…The experimental design used by researchers in the motor learning domain has commonly included two phases; acquisition (i.e., practice), and a post-test phase, with the post-test commonly including both retention and transfer tests (Carter, Smith, Carlsen, & Ste-Marie, 2017;Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002). However, more recently, experimental designs have added a third experimental phase; a pre-test phase.…”

Estimativa de erro e conhecimento de resultados autocontrolado na aprendizagem motora

“…Resultados semelhantes têm sido obtidos para diferentes tarefas motoras, tanto de campo -forehand do tênis de mesa (BUND; WIEMEYER; 2004), arremesso com salto no basquetebol (WULF, RAUPACH;PFEIFFER, 2005), simulador de esqui (WULF; TOOLE, 1999), habilidades do golfe (JANELLE et al, 1997;WU;MAGILL, 2004) -como de laboratório -tarefas de timing sequencial (CHIVIACOWSKY;WULF, 2002;HANSEN, 2013), tarefa de timing coincidente (ALI et al, 2012;CARTER, et al, 2017;STE-MARIE, 2017a;CHIVIACOWSKY, 2014;CHIVIACOWSKY;WULF;LEWTHWAITE, 2012), posicionamento linear CARLSEN, STE-MARIE, 2014;CARTER, RATHWELL, STE-MARIE;2016;CHIVIACOWSKY;LESSA, 2017) e arremesso ao alvo LAUGHLIN;NGUYEN, 2012;HEMAYATTALAB, et al, 2013).…”