ABSTRACT
The prefrontal cortex plays a crucial role in cognitive processes, both during anticipatory and reactive modes of cognitive control. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) can modulate these cognitive resources. However, there is a lack of research exploring the impact of tDCS on emotional material processing in the prefrontal cortex, particularly in regard to proactive and reactive modes of cognitive control. In this study, 35 healthy volunteers underwent both real and sham tDCS applied to the right prefrontal cortex in a counterbalanced order, and then completed the Cued Emotion Control Task (CECT). Pupil dilation, a measure of cognitive resource allocation, and behavioral outcomes, such as reaction time and accuracy, were collected. The results indicate that, as compared to sham stimulation, active right-sided tDCS reduced performance and resource allocation in both proactive and reactive modes of cognitive control. These findings highlight the importance of further research on the effects of tDCS applied to the right prefrontal cortex on cognitive engagement, particularly for clinical trials utilizing the present electrode montage in combination with cognitive interventions. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation/adverse effects , Prefrontal Cortex , Emotions , Resource Allocation , Healthy VolunteersABSTRACT
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been increasingly used over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) to enhance working memory (WM) performance. Notwithstanding, NIBS protocols have shown either small or inconclusive cognitive effects on healthy and neuropsychiatric samples. Therefore, we assessed working memory performance and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), and both therapies combined vs placebo over the neuronavigated left DLPFC of healthy participants. Twenty-four subjects were included to randomly undergo four sessions of NIBS, once a week: tDCS alone, iTBS alone, combined interventions and placebo. The 2-back task and an adverse effect scale were applied after each NIBS session. Results revealed a significantly faster response for iTBS (b= -21.49, p= 0.04), but not for tDCS and for the interaction tDCS vs. iTBS (b= 13.67, p= 0.26 and b= 40.5, p= 0.20, respectively). No changes were observed for accuracy and no serious adverse effects were found among protocols. Although tolerable, an absence of synergistic effects for the combined protocol was seen. Nonetheless, future trials accessing different outcomes for the combined protocols, as well as studies investigating iTBS over the left DLPFC for cognition and exploring sources of variability for tDCS are encouraged. (AU)
