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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |