2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.01.188
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effectiveness of tDCS blinding protocol in a sham-controlled study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At the end of the study participants were asked to identify at which session they had received either sham or active anodal tDCS. Only 16 out of the 54 participants (29.6% of the sample; nine in the left DLPFC group, seven in the right DLPFC group) correctly identified the tDCS sessions assignment (comparable to other recent studies testing the effectiveness of tDCS blinding protocols, e.g., Dinn et al, 2017). Therefore, our tDCS montage effectively blinded stimulation session assignation.…”
Section: Attentional Disengagementsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…At the end of the study participants were asked to identify at which session they had received either sham or active anodal tDCS. Only 16 out of the 54 participants (29.6% of the sample; nine in the left DLPFC group, seven in the right DLPFC group) correctly identified the tDCS sessions assignment (comparable to other recent studies testing the effectiveness of tDCS blinding protocols, e.g., Dinn et al, 2017). Therefore, our tDCS montage effectively blinded stimulation session assignation.…”
Section: Attentional Disengagementsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The same parameters were used for sham stimulation, except the device shuts off after 3% of the active stimulation time, resulting in 54 s of active stimulation. This brief period of active stimulation is not known to produce active neurological effects, but does ensure blinding because it is associated with common side effects of active tDCS, such as tingling and itching under the electrodes (Dinn et al, 2017 ; Gandiga et al, 2006 ; Valiengo et al, 2020 ). For a full description of the tDCS parameters, please see Rajji et al ( 2020 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the active tDCS condition, the device was programed to deliver the electrical current at 2.5 mA for 20 min, with a current density under the surface electrodes of 0.1 mA/cm 2 . For the sham tDCS condition, the device was programed to have a 60‐second ramp up/down to the desired current intensity (2.5 mA) delivered at the beginning of the 20‐minute period and a 60‐second ramp up/down delivered at the end of the 20‐minute period, with no current otherwise delivered during the session 24,25 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the sham tDCS condition, the device was programed to have a 60-second ramp up/down to the desired current intensity (2.5 mA) delivered at the beginning of the 20-minute period and a 60-second ramp up/down delivered at the end of the 20-minute period, with no current otherwise delivered during the session. 24,25 At the end of the study, blinding integrity was assessed by participant's guess of assigned condition.…”
Section: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulationmentioning
confidence: 99%