Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.9
3.3
Journals
Brain Sciences
Special Issues
The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive...
share announcement

The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results

A special issue of Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425). This special issue belongs to the section "Neurotechnology and Neuroimaging".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 December 2021) | Viewed by 17438

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Leonor J Romero Lauro

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca,Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 Milano MI, Italy
Interests: neural correlates of higher cognitive functions; language; short-term memory

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, 

This Special Issue will bring together studies that explore the modulatory effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on cognitive functions, taking into consideration both significant and null results from pre-registered studies. The rationale is that valuable hints concerning the clinical application of NIBS and the effectiveness of existing protocols for rehabilitating impaired cognitive functions can benefit from both significant and null results. This Special Issue is open to any research addressing the presence or absence of behavioral effects of NIBS on higher cognitive functions, including but not limited to language, memory, attention, and decision making. Research employing different types of NIBS, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, or static transcranial magnetic stimulation is welcome.

Dr. Leonor J Romero Lauro
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Brain Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • NIBS
  • cognitive functions
  • behavioral effects
  • null effects

Published Papers (6 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

19 pages, 2090 KiB  
Article
Exploring the Effects of Brain Stimulation on Musical Taste: tDCS on the Left Dorso-Lateral Prefrontal Cortex—A Null Result
by Gemma Massetti, Carlotta Lega, Zaira Cattaneo, Alberto Gallace and Giuseppe Vallar
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(4), 467; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12040467 - 31 Mar 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1912
Abstract
Humans are the only species capable of experiencing pleasure from esthetic stimuli, such as art and music. Neuroimaging evidence suggests that the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) plays a critical role in esthetic judgments, both in music and in visual art. In the [...] Read more.
Humans are the only species capable of experiencing pleasure from esthetic stimuli, such as art and music. Neuroimaging evidence suggests that the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) plays a critical role in esthetic judgments, both in music and in visual art. In the last decade, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been increasingly employed to shed light on the causal role of different brain regions contributing to esthetic appreciation. In Experiment #1, musician (N = 20) and non-musician (N = 20) participants were required to judge musical stimuli in terms of “liking” and “emotions”. No significant differences between groups were found, although musicians were slower than non-musicians in both tasks, likely indicating a more analytic judgment, due to musical expertise. Experiment #2 investigated the putative causal role of the left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex (DLPFC) in the esthetic appreciation of music, by means of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Unlike previous findings in visual art, no significant effects of tDCS were found, suggesting that stimulating the left DLPFC is not enough to affect the esthetic appreciation of music, although this conclusion is based on negative evidence,. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 2266 KiB  
Article
Conventional and HD-tDCS May (or May Not) Modulate Overt Attentional Orienting: An Integrated Spatio-Temporal Approach and Methodological Reflections
by Lorenzo Diana, Giulia Scotti, Edoardo N. Aiello, Patrick Pilastro, Aleksandra K. Eberhard-Moscicka, René M. Müri and Nadia Bolognini
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(1), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010071 - 31 Dec 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2260
Abstract
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been employed to modulate visuo-spatial attentional asymmetries, however, further investigation is needed to characterize tDCS-associated variability in more ecological settings. In the present research, we tested the effects of offline, anodal conventional tDCS (Experiment 1) and HD-tDCS [...] Read more.
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been employed to modulate visuo-spatial attentional asymmetries, however, further investigation is needed to characterize tDCS-associated variability in more ecological settings. In the present research, we tested the effects of offline, anodal conventional tDCS (Experiment 1) and HD-tDCS (Experiment 2) delivered over the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and Frontal Eye Field (FEF) of the right hemisphere in healthy participants. Attentional asymmetries were measured by means of an eye tracking-based, ecological paradigm, that is, a Free Visual Exploration task of naturalistic pictures. Data were analyzed from a spatiotemporal perspective. In Experiment 1, a pre-post linear mixed model (LMM) indicated a leftward attentional shift after PPC tDCS; this effect was not confirmed when the individual baseline performance was considered. In Experiment 2, FEF HD-tDCS was shown to induce a significant leftward shift of gaze position, which emerged after 6 s of picture exploration and lasted for 200 ms. The present results do not allow us to conclude on a clear efficacy of offline conventional tDCS and HD-tDCS in modulating overt visuospatial attention in an ecological setting. Nonetheless, our findings highlight a complex relationship among stimulated area, focality of stimulation, spatiotemporal aspects of deployment of attention, and the role of individual baseline performance in shaping the effects of tDCS. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1280 KiB  
Article
Blinding in tDCS Studies: Correct End-of-Study Guess Does Not Moderate the Effects on Associative and Working Memory
by Marija Stanković, Marko Živanović, Jovana Bjekić and Saša R. Filipović
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(1), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010058 - 31 Dec 2021
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 2557
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has become a valuable tool in cognitive neuroscience research as it enables causal inferences about neural underpinnings of cognition. However, studies using tDCS to modulate cognitive functions often yield inconsistent findings. Hence, there is an increasing interest in [...] Read more.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has become a valuable tool in cognitive neuroscience research as it enables causal inferences about neural underpinnings of cognition. However, studies using tDCS to modulate cognitive functions often yield inconsistent findings. Hence, there is an increasing interest in factors that may moderate the effects, one of which is the participants’ beliefs of the tDCS condition (i.e., real or sham) they received. Namely, whether participants’ correct guessing of sham condition may lead to false-positive tDCS effects. In this study, we aimed to explore if participants’ beliefs about received stimulation type (i.e., the success of blinding) impacted their task performance in tDCS experiments on associative (AM) and working memory (WM). We analyzed data from four within-subject, sham-controlled tDCS memory experiments (N = 83) to check if the correct end-of-study guess of sham condition moderated tDCS effects. We found no evidence that sham guessing moderated post-tDCS memory performance in experiments in which tDCS effects were observed as well as in experiments that showed null effects of tDCS. The results suggest that the correct sham guessing (i.e., placebo-like effect) is unlikely to influence the results in tDCS memory experiments. We discuss the results in light of the growing debate about the relevance and effectiveness of blinding in brain stimulation research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 1058 KiB  
Article
Null Effect of Transcranial Static Magnetic Field Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Behavioral Performance in a Go/NoGo Task
by Tatsunori Watanabe, Nami Kubo, Xiaoxiao Chen, Keisuke Yunoki, Takuya Matsumoto, Takayuki Kuwabara, Toru Sunagawa, Shota Date, Tatsuya Mima and Hikari Kirimoto
Brain Sci. 2021, 11(4), 483; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11040483 - 11 Apr 2021
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2422
Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate whether transcranial static magnetic field stimulation (tSMS), which can modulate cortical excitability, would influence inhibitory control function when applied over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Young healthy adults (n = 8, mean age [...] Read more.
The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate whether transcranial static magnetic field stimulation (tSMS), which can modulate cortical excitability, would influence inhibitory control function when applied over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Young healthy adults (n = 8, mean age ± SD = 24.4 ± 4.1, six females) received the following stimulations for 30 min on different days: (1) tSMS over the left DLPFC, (2) tSMS over the right DLPFC, and (3) sham stimulation over either the left or right DLPFC. The participants performed a Go/NoGo task before, immediately after, and 10 min after the stimulation. They were instructed to extend the right wrist in response to target stimuli. We recorded the electromyogram from the right wrist extensor muscles and analyzed erroneous responses (false alarm and missed target detection) and reaction times. As a result, 50% of the participants made erroneous responses, and there were five erroneous responses in total (0.003%). A series of statistical analyses revealed that tSMS did not affect the reaction time. These preliminary findings suggest the possibility that tSMS over the DLPFC is incapable of modulating inhibitory control and/or that the cognitive load imposed in this study was insufficient to detect the effect. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

28 pages, 933 KiB  
Review
Inter-Individual Variability in tDCS Effects: A Narrative Review on the Contribution of Stable, Variable, and Contextual Factors
by Alessandra Vergallito, Sarah Feroldi, Alberto Pisoni and Leonor J. Romero Lauro
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(5), 522; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12050522 - 20 Apr 2022
Cited by 33 | Viewed by 3586
Abstract
Due to its safety, portability, and cheapness, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use largely increased in research and clinical settings. Despite tDCS’s wide application, previous works pointed out inconsistent and low replicable results, sometimes leading to extreme conclusions about tDCS’s ineffectiveness in modulating [...] Read more.
Due to its safety, portability, and cheapness, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use largely increased in research and clinical settings. Despite tDCS’s wide application, previous works pointed out inconsistent and low replicable results, sometimes leading to extreme conclusions about tDCS’s ineffectiveness in modulating behavioral performance across cognitive domains. Traditionally, this variability has been linked to significant differences in the stimulation protocols across studies, including stimulation parameters, target regions, and electrodes montage. Here, we reviewed and discussed evidence of heterogeneity emerging at the intra-study level, namely inter-individual differences that may influence the response to tDCS within each study. This source of variability has been largely neglected by literature, being results mainly analyzed at the group level. Previous research, however, highlighted that only a half—or less—of studies’ participants could be classified as responders, being affected by tDCS in the expected direction. Stable and variable inter-individual differences, such as morphological and genetic features vs. hormonal/exogenous substance consumption, partially account for this heterogeneity. Moreover, variability comes from experiments’ contextual elements, such as participants’ engagement/baseline capacity and individual task difficulty. We concluded that increasing knowledge on inter-dividual differences rather than undermining tDCS effectiveness could enhance protocols’ efficiency and reproducibility. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

27 pages, 405 KiB  
Review
The Role of Expectation and Beliefs on the Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation
by Miriam Braga, Diletta Barbiani, Mehran Emadi Andani, Bernardo Villa-Sánchez, Michele Tinazzi and Mirta Fiorio
Brain Sci. 2021, 11(11), 1526; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111526 - 18 Nov 2021
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 3624
Abstract
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques are used in clinical and cognitive neuroscience to induce a mild magnetic or electric field in the brain to modulate behavior and cortical activation. Despite the great body of literature demonstrating promising results, unexpected or even paradoxical outcomes [...] Read more.
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques are used in clinical and cognitive neuroscience to induce a mild magnetic or electric field in the brain to modulate behavior and cortical activation. Despite the great body of literature demonstrating promising results, unexpected or even paradoxical outcomes are sometimes observed. This might be due either to technical and methodological issues (e.g., stimulation parameters, stimulated brain area), or to participants’ expectations and beliefs before and during the stimulation sessions. In this narrative review, we present some studies showing that placebo and nocebo effects, associated with positive and negative expectations, respectively, could be present in NIBS trials, both in experimental and in clinical settings. The lack of systematic evaluation of subjective expectations and beliefs before and after stimulation could represent a caveat that overshadows the potential contribution of placebo and nocebo effects in the outcome of NIBS trials. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Modulatory Role of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques on Cognitive Functions: Hints from Significant and Null Results)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-6
Back to TopTop