Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is increasingly used in both research and therapeutic settings, but its precise mechanisms remain largely unknown. At a neuronal level, tDCS modulates cortical excitability by shifting the resting membrane potential in a polarity-dependent way: anodal stimulation increases the spontaneous firing rate, while cathodal decreases it. However, the neurophysiological underpinnings of anodal/cathodal tDCS seem to be different, as well as their behavioral effect, in particular when high order areas are involved, compared to when motor or sensory brain areas are targeted. Previously, we investigated the effect of anodal tDCS on cortical excitability, by means of a combination of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Electroencephalography (EEG). Results showed a diffuse rise of cortical excitability in a bilateral fronto-parietal network. In the present study, we tested, with the same paradigm, the effect of cathodal tDCS. Single pulse TMS was delivered over the left posterior parietal cortex (PPC), before, during, and after 10 min of cathodal or sham tDCS over the right PPC, while recording HD-EEG. Indexes of global and local cortical excitability were obtained both at sensors and cortical sources level. At sensors, global and local mean field power (GMFP and LMFP) were computed for three temporal windows (0–50, 50–100, and 100–150 ms), on all channels (GMFP), and in four different clusters of electrodes (LMFP, left and right, in frontal and parietal regions). After source reconstruction, Significant Current Density was computed at the global level, and for four Broadmann's areas (left/right BA 6 and 7). Both sensors and cortical sources results converge in showing no differences during and after cathodal tDCS compared to pre-stimulation sessions, both at global and local level. The same holds for sham tDCS. These data highlight an asymmetric impact of anodal and cathodal stimulation on cortical excitability, with a diffuse effect of anodal and no effect of cathodal tDCS over the parietal cortex. These results are consistent with the current literature: while anodal-excitatory and cathodal-inhibitory effects are well-established in the sensory and motor domains, both at physiological and behavioral levels, results for cathodal stimulation are more controversial for modulation of exitability of higher order areas.
An increasing number of studies suggests that implicit attitudes toward food and body shape predict eating behaviour and characterize patients with eating disorders (EDs). However, literature has not been previously analysed, thus differences between patients with EDs and healthy controls and the level of automaticity of the processes involved in implicit attitudes are still matters of debate. The present systematic review aimed to synthetize current evidence from papers investigating implicit attitudes towards food and body in healthy and EDs populations. PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus were systematically screened and 183 studies using different indirect paradigms were included in the qualitative analysis. The majority of studies reported negative attitudes towards overweight/obese body images in healthy and EDs samples and weight bias as a diffuse stereotypical evaluation. Implicit food attitudes are consistently reported as valid predictors of eating behaviour. Few studies on the neurobiological correlates showed neurostimulation effects on implicit attitudes, but the automaticity at brain level of implicit evaluations remains an open area of research. In conclusion, implicit attitudes are relevant measures of eating behaviour in healthy and clinical settings, although evidence about their neural correlates is limited.
The extensive use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in experimental and clinical settings does not correspond to an in-depth understanding of its underlying neurophysiological mechanisms. In previous studies, we employed an integrated system of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) to track the effect of tDCS on cortical excitability. At rest, anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) over the right Posterior Parietal Cortex (rPPC) elicits a widespread increase in cortical excitability. In contrast, cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) fails to modulate cortical excitability, being indistinguishable from sham stimulation. Here we investigated whether an endogenous task-induced activation during stimulation might change this pattern, improving c-tDCS effectiveness in modulating cortical excitability. In Study 1, we tested whether performance in a Visuospatial Working Memory Task (VWMT) and a modified Posner Cueing Task (mPCT), involving rPPC, could be modulated by c-tDCS. Thirty-eight participants were involved in a two-session experiment receiving either c-tDCS or sham during tasks execution. In Study 2, we recruited sixteen novel participants who performed the same paradigm but underwent TMS-EEG recordings pre- and 10 minutes post-sham and c-tDCS. Behavioral results showed that c-tDCS significantly modulated mPCT performance compared to sham. At a neurophysiological level, c-tDCS significantly reduced cortical excitability in a frontoparietal network involved in task execution. Taken together, our results provide evidence of the state dependence of c-tDCS in modulating cortical excitability effectively. The conceptual and applicative implications are discussed.
In a previous sham-controlled study, we showed the feasibility of increasing language comprehension in healthy participants by applying anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) over the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG). In the present work, we present a follow-up experiment targeting with atDCS the left inferior parietal cortex (LIPC) while participants performed the same comprehension task used in our previous experiment. Both neural sites are crucial hubs of Baddeley's model of verbal short-term memory (vSTM).AtDCS over LIPC decreased accuracy as compared to sham and LIFG stimulation, suggesting the involvement of these brain regions in sentence comprehension. Crucially, our results highlighted that applying tDCS over different hubs of the same neural network can lead to opposite behavioral results, with relevant implications from a clinical perspective.
Gambling disorder (GD) is a behavioral addiction that severely impacts individuals’ functioning, leading to high socioeconomic costs. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NiBS) has received attention for treating psychiatric and neurological conditions in recent decades, but there is no recommendation for its use for GD. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and analyze the available literature to determine the effectiveness of NiBS in treating GD. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we screened four electronic databases up to July 2022 and selected relevant English-written original articles. We included ten papers in the systematic review and seven in the meta-analysis. As only two studies employed a sham-controlled design, the pre–post standardized mean change (SMCC) was computed as effect size only for real stimulation. The results showed a significant effect of NiBS in reducing craving scores (SMCC = −0.69; 95% CI = [−1.2, −0.2], p = 0.010). Moreover, considering the GD’s frequent comorbidity with mood disorders, we ran an exploratory analysis of the effects of NiBS on depressive symptoms, which showed significant decreases in post-treatment scores (SMCC = −0.71; 95% CI = [−1.1, −0.3], p < 0.001). These results provide initial evidence for developing NiBS as a feasible therapy for GD symptoms but further comprehensive research is needed to validate these findings. The limitations of the available literature are critically discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.