Cargando…

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

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 mechani...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thunberg, Christina, Messel, Mari S., Raud, Liisa, Huster, René J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7210274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32385323
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62921-z
_version_ 1783531250587271168
author Thunberg, Christina
Messel, Mari S.
Raud, Liisa
Huster, René J.
author_facet Thunberg, Christina
Messel, Mari S.
Raud, Liisa
Huster, René J.
author_sort Thunberg, Christina
collection PubMed
description 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 within-participant 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7210274
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72102742020-05-15 tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition Thunberg, Christina Messel, Mari S. Raud, Liisa Huster, René J. Sci Rep Article 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 within-participant 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7210274/ /pubmed/32385323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62921-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Thunberg, Christina
Messel, Mari S.
Raud, Liisa
Huster, René J.
tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
title tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
title_full tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
title_fullStr tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
title_full_unstemmed tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
title_short tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
title_sort tdcs over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices did not improve response inhibition
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7210274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32385323
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62921-z
work_keys_str_mv AT thunbergchristina tdcsovertheinferiorfrontalgyriandvisualcorticesdidnotimproveresponseinhibition
AT messelmaris tdcsovertheinferiorfrontalgyriandvisualcorticesdidnotimproveresponseinhibition
AT raudliisa tdcsovertheinferiorfrontalgyriandvisualcorticesdidnotimproveresponseinhibition
AT husterrenej tdcsovertheinferiorfrontalgyriandvisualcorticesdidnotimproveresponseinhibition