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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Greinacher, Robert, Buhôt, Larissa, Möller, Lisa, Learmonth, Gemma
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