What Do People Expect of Cognitive Enhancement?

Rabipour, Sheida; Andringa, Ronald; Boot, Walter R.; Davidson, Patrick S. R.

doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0050-3

Cited by 22 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In both Study 1 and 2, participants rated their expectations of tDCS effectiveness using the Expectation Assessment Scale (EAS), a questionnaire we described in our previous work (Rabipour and Davidson, 2015; Rabipour et al, 2017) and validated for use in this context (Rabipour et al, 2018a), on three occasions: (i) at baseline; (ii) after receiving High or Low expectation priming; and (iii) after the tDCS session. Briefly, participants rated their expectations of outcomes on a scale from 1 to 7 (Table 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expectations, moreover, have been show to modulate the effects of deep brain stimulation in clinical populations, such as patients with Parkinson's disease (Keitel et al, 2013). Mixed findings in the literature have generated polarizing claims in popular science magazines and media, which may influence expectations of outcomes at the outset of an intervention (Rabipour et al, 2017). Such expectations regarding outcomes represent a potential factor that may impact tDCS interventions aiming at modulating performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite a growing literature and commercial market, the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) remains questionable. Notably, studies rarely examine factors such as expectations of outcomes, which may influence tDCS response through placebo-like effects. Here we sought to determine whether expectations could influence the behavioral outcomes of a tDCS intervention.Methods: Through an initial study and self-replication, we recruited 121 naïve young adults 18–34 years of age (M = 21.14, SD = 3.58; 88 women). We evaluated expectations of tDCS and of motor and cognitive performance at three times: (i) at baseline; (ii) after being primed to have High or Low expectations of outcomes; and (iii) after a single session of sham-controlled anodal tDCS over the left or right motor cortex. Before and after stimulation, participants performed the Grooved Pegboard Test and a choice reaction time task as measures of motor dexterity, response time, and response inhibition.Results: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that participants had varying, largely uncertain, expectations regarding tDCS effectiveness at baseline. Expectation ratings significantly increased or decreased in response to High or Low priming, respectively, and decreased following the intervention. Response times and accuracy on motor and cognitive measures were largely unaffected by expectation or stimulation conditions. Overall, our analysis revealed no effect attributable to baseline expectations, belief of group assignment, or experimental condition on behavioral outcomes. Subjective experience did not differ based on expectation or stimulation condition.Conclusions: Our results suggest no clear effects of tDCS or of expectations on our performance measures, highlighting the need for further investigations of such stimulation methods.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crucially, studies of tDCS have rarely examined psychological factors such as expectations of outcomes, which may influence tDCS responsiveness through placebo or Hawthorne-like effects (McCambridge, Witton, & Elbourne, 2014;Shiozawa, Duailibi, da Silva, & Cordeiro, 2014). Evidence for the influence of expectations on cognitive interventions (Foroughi, Monfort, Paczynski, McKnight, & Greenwood, 2016;Rabipour, Andringa, Boot, & Davidson, 2017;Rabipour & Davidson, 2015) and performance (Schwarz, Pfister, & Buchel, 2016), coupled with the possible influence of factors such as emotional state (Sarkar, Dowker, & Cohen Kadosh, 2014) and motivation (Jones, Gozenman, & Berryhill, 2015) on responsiveness to tDCS, underline the importance of examining the potential influence of expectations on tDCS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study we assessed expectations of NIBS and examined the effects of expectation priming on cognitive performance following tDCS in healthy young adults (see also Rabipour et al, 2017;Rabipour & Davidson, 2015). Specifically, we asked: i) whether people tend to have neutral, optimistic, or pessimistic expectations of NIBS; ii) whether expectations of NIBS outcomes can be modified based on information indicating that the procedure either can or cannot enhance cognitive function; and iii) whether expectations of NIBS interact with the effects of anodal tDCS during performance of a cognitively challenging task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expectations May Influence the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Rabipour

Davidson

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing interest surrounds transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a safe and inexpensive method for improving cognitive functions and mood. Nevertheless, tDCS studies rarely examine psychological factors such as expectations of outcomes, which may influence tDCS responsiveness through placebo-like effects. Here we sought to evaluate the potential influence of expectations on tDCS intervention outcomes. We assessed expectations of tDCS outcomes in 88 healthy young adults on three occasions: i) at baseline; ii) after reading information implying either high or low effectiveness of stimulation; and iii) after a singlesession of sham-controlled anodal tDCS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, during working memory (WM) training. Participants were largely uncertain about the effectiveness of stimulation in improving cognitive function at baseline. High or low expectation priming using simple positive or cautionary messages significantly increased or decreased expectation ratings, respectively, but ratings significantly decreased following stimulation in all groups. We found greater improvement in participants who received high compared to low expectation priming.Participants who received active stimulation and low expectation priming exhibited the lowest performance, suggesting that expectation priming and stimulation may have interacted. We did not find a significant effect of baseline expectations, belief of group assignment, or individual characteristics on measures of WM and verbal fluency. People randomly assigned to receive high expectation priming reported having a more pleasant experience overall, including greater satisfaction. Our findings suggest that expectations of outcomes should be taken into account in tDCS-based experimental studies and clinical trials.peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/279554 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Mar. 10, 2018; RUNNING HEAD: Expectations and tDCS outcomes -Based on prior knowledge, healthy subjects are uncertain about NIBS effectiveness.-Expectations of NIBS can change after a single exposure to simple written messages.-Expectations of outcomes may influence cognitive performance.-High expectations may lead to a more positive experience and motivation to perform.-Low expectations may be counterproductive to NIBS.peer-reviewed)

show abstract

“…In contrast, both Rabipour and Davidson (2015) and Torous et al (2016) reported no significant gender differences. While the AARP survey found older adults more optimistic about cognitive training, Rabipour and Davidson (2015) and Rabipour et al (2018a) found young adults to be more optimistic. Our survey, which found no significant differences between age groups, completes the set of possibilities.…”

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Perceptions of Brain Training: Public Expectations of Cognitive Benefits From Popular Activities

Schafer

Simone

et al. 2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What Do People Expect of Cognitive Enhancement?

Cited by 22 publications

References 21 publications

Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance

Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance

Expectations May Influence the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Perceptions of Brain Training: Public Expectations of Cognitive Benefits From Popular Activities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About