Cargando…
The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation
Studies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare an active protocol relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol. Both protocols are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double‐blinded experimental des...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6899874/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31228880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14497 |
_version_ | 1783477228499107840 |
---|---|
author | Greinacher, Robert Buhôt, Larissa Möller, Lisa Learmonth, Gemma |
author_facet | Greinacher, Robert Buhôt, Larissa Möller, Lisa Learmonth, Gemma |
author_sort | Greinacher, Robert |
collection | PubMed |
description | Studies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare an active protocol relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol. Both protocols are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double‐blinded experimental designs. However, participants often show above‐chance accuracy when asked which condition involved active/sham retrospectively. We assessed the time course of sham‐blinding during active and sham tDCS. We predicted that participants would be aware that the current is switched on for longer in the active versus sham protocol. Thirty‐two adults were tested in a preregistered, double‐blinded, within‐subjects design. A forced‐choice reaction time task was undertaken before, during and after active (10 min 1 mA) and sham (20 s 1 mA) tDCS. The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (C3) to target the right hand, and the cathode on the right forehead. Two probe questions were asked every 30 s: “Is the stimulation on?” and “How sure are you?”. Distinct periods of non‐overlapping confidence intervals were identified between conditions, totalling 5 min (57.1% of the total difference in stimulation time). These began immediately after sham ramp‐down and lasted until the active protocol had ended. We therefore show a failure of placebo control during 1 mA tDCS. These results highlight the need to develop more effective methods of sham‐blinding during transcranial electrical stimulation protocols, even when delivered at low‐intensity current strengths. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6899874 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68998742019-12-19 The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation Greinacher, Robert Buhôt, Larissa Möller, Lisa Learmonth, Gemma Eur J Neurosci Cognitive Neuroscience Studies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare an active protocol relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol. Both protocols are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double‐blinded experimental designs. However, participants often show above‐chance accuracy when asked which condition involved active/sham retrospectively. We assessed the time course of sham‐blinding during active and sham tDCS. We predicted that participants would be aware that the current is switched on for longer in the active versus sham protocol. Thirty‐two adults were tested in a preregistered, double‐blinded, within‐subjects design. A forced‐choice reaction time task was undertaken before, during and after active (10 min 1 mA) and sham (20 s 1 mA) tDCS. The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (C3) to target the right hand, and the cathode on the right forehead. Two probe questions were asked every 30 s: “Is the stimulation on?” and “How sure are you?”. Distinct periods of non‐overlapping confidence intervals were identified between conditions, totalling 5 min (57.1% of the total difference in stimulation time). These began immediately after sham ramp‐down and lasted until the active protocol had ended. We therefore show a failure of placebo control during 1 mA tDCS. These results highlight the need to develop more effective methods of sham‐blinding during transcranial electrical stimulation protocols, even when delivered at low‐intensity current strengths. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-07-08 2019-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6899874/ /pubmed/31228880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14497 Text en © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Neuroscience published by Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Cognitive Neuroscience Greinacher, Robert Buhôt, Larissa Möller, Lisa Learmonth, Gemma The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation |
title | The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation |
title_full | The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation |
title_fullStr | The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation |
title_full_unstemmed | The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation |
title_short | The time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 mA) transcranial direct current stimulation |
title_sort | time course of ineffective sham‐blinding during low‐intensity (1 ma) transcranial direct current stimulation |
topic | Cognitive Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6899874/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31228880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14497 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT greinacherrobert thetimecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT buhotlarissa thetimecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT mollerlisa thetimecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT learmonthgemma thetimecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT greinacherrobert timecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT buhotlarissa timecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT mollerlisa timecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation AT learmonthgemma timecourseofineffectiveshamblindingduringlowintensity1matranscranialdirectcurrentstimulation |