Pimping inhibition: Anodal tDCS enhances stop-signal reaction time.

Friehs, Maximilian A.; Frings, Christian

doi:10.1037/xhp0000579

Cited by 51 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using tDCS, Penolazzi et al (2014) reported that cathodal stimulation over rDLPFC leads to decreased inhibition during the standard retrieval-practice paradigm (RPP). Also, Friehs and Frings (2018) examined the inhibitory role of rDLPFC on Stop-Signal Reaction Time (SSRT) using tDCS. They reported a reduction in SSRT and the number of omission errors after anodal tDCS (a-tDCS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of left and right inferior frontal gyrus on creative divergent thinking are moderated by changes in inhibition control

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Divergent thinking (DT) as one component of creativity is the ability to search for multiple solutions to a single problem and is reliably tested with the Alternative Uses Task (AUT). DT depends on activity in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), a prefrontal region that has also been associated with inhibitory control (IC). Experimentally manipulating IC through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) led to alterations in DT. Here, we aimed at further examining such potential mediating effects of IC on DT (measured as flexibility, fluency, and originality in the AUT) by modulating IC tDCS. Participants received either cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) of the left IFG coupled with anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) of the right IFG (L−R + ; N = 19), or the opposite treatment (L + R−; N = 21). We hypothesized that L + R− stimulation would enhance IC assessed with the Go NoGo task (GNGT), and that facilitated IC would result in lower creativity scores. The reversed stimulation arrangement (i.e., L− R +) should result in higher creativity scores. We found that tDCS only affected the originality component of the AUT but not flexibility or fluency. We also found no effects on IC, and thus, the mediation effect of IC could not be confirmed. However, we observed a moderation effect: inhibition of left and facilitation of right IFG (L−R +) resulted in enhanced flexibility and originality scores, only when IC performance was also improved. We conclude that inducing a right-to-left gradient in IFG activity by tDCS is efficient in enhancing DT, but only under conditions where tDCS is sufficient to alter IC performance as well. Keywords Creativity • Divergent thinking (DT) • AUT (alternative uses task) • Fluency • Originality • Flexibility • tDCS • IFG Abbreviations AP Action potentials AUT Alternative uses task DT Divergent thinking EFs Executive functions GNGT Go No Go task IC Inhibitory control IFG Inferior frontal gyrus PFC Prefrontal cortex rDLPFC Right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex tDCS Transcranial direct current stimulation Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of left and right inferior frontal gyrus on creative divergent thinking are moderated by changes in inhibition control

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study has 3 important limitations. First, overall reaction times and inhibition speeds were elevated in both the SST and SSG compared with the ordinarily observed values [ 65 , 66 , 83 , 85 , 86 , 95 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence that SSRT is unaffected by the demands of the go task [ 95 ], but this is still up for debate [ 83 , 86 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…For example, a reduction in inhibitory control and a general increase in impulsivity can be seen in people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [ 59 , 60 ] or patients with schizophrenia [ 61 , 62 ]. In addition, evidence suggests that training or certain types of sports [ 63 , 64 ], as well as noninvasive brain stimulation, can modulate an individual’s ability to stop a response [ 65 , 66 ]. As response inhibition has been consistently associated with certain disorders, it has been proposed that response inhibition capabilities can be used as a form of objective diagnostic indicator, especially in ADHD but also in other disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) [ 60 , 67 - 69 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A lack of ability to inhibit prepotent responses, or more generally a lack of impulse control, is associated with several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia as well as general damage to the prefrontal cortex. A stop-signal task (SST) is a reliable and established measure of response inhibition. However, using the SST as an objective assessment in diagnostic or research-focused settings places significant stress on participants as the task itself requires concentration and cognitive effort and is not particularly engaging. This can lead to decreased motivation to follow task instructions and poor data quality, which can affect assessment efficacy and might increase drop-out rates. Gamification—the application of game-based elements in nongame settings—has shown to improve engaged attention to a cognitive task, thus increasing participant motivation and data quality. Objective This study aims to design a gamified SST that improves participants’ engagement and validate this gamified SST against a standard SST. Methods We described the design of our gamified SST and reported on 2 separate studies that aim to validate the gamified SST relative to a standard SST. In study 1, a within-subject design was used to compare the performance of the SST and a stop-signal game (SSG). In study 2, we added eye tracking to the procedure to determine if overt attention was affected and aimed to replicate the findings from study 1 in a between-subjects design. Furthermore, in both studies, flow and motivational experiences were measured. Results In contrast, the behavioral performance was comparable between the tasks (P<.87; BF01=2.87), and the experience of flow and intrinsic motivation were rated higher in the SSG group, although this difference was not significant. Conclusions Overall, our findings provide evidence that the gamification of SST is possible and that the SSG is enjoyed more. Thus, when participant engagement is critical, we recommend using the SSG instead of the SST.

show abstract

“…In fact, they have also been reported following e.g. stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex 48,49 or the pre-supplementary motor area [50][51][52] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition

Thunberg

Messel

Raud

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to cancel an already initiated response is central to flexible behavior. While several different behavioral and neural markers have been suggested to quantify the latency of the stopping process, it remains unclear if they quantify the stopping process itself, or other supporting mechanisms such as visual and/or attentional processing. the present study sought to investigate the contributions of inhibitory and sensory processes to stopping latency markers by combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDcS), electroencephalography (eeG) and electromyography (eMG) recordings in a withinparticipant design. Active and sham tDcS were applied over the inferior frontal gyri (ifG) and visual cortices (VC), combined with both online and offline EEG and EMG recordings. We found evidence that neither of the active tDCS condition affected stopping latencies relative to sham stimulation. Our results challenge previous findings suggesting that anodal tDCS over the IFG can reduce stopping latency and demonstrates the necessity of adequate control conditions in tDcS research. Additionally, while the different putative markers of stopping latency showed generally positive correlations with each other, they also showed substantial variation in the estimated latency of inhibition, making it unlikely that they all capture the same construct exclusively.

show abstract

Pimping inhibition: Anodal tDCS enhances stop-signal reaction time.

Cited by 51 publications

References 107 publications

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of left and right inferior frontal gyrus on creative divergent thinking are moderated by changes in inhibition control

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of left and right inferior frontal gyrus on creative divergent thinking are moderated by changes in inhibition control

Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments

tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About