In sports science, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has many unknown effects on neuromuscular, psychomotor and cognitive aspects. Particularly, its impact on power performances remains poorly investigated. Eighteen healthy young males, all trained in a jumping sport (parkour) performed three experimental sessions: anodal tDCS applied either on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC, cathode in supraorbital area) or on the primary motor cortex (M1, cathode on contralateral shoulder), and a placebo condition (SHAM), each applied for 20 min at 2 mA. Pre and post, maximal vertical and horizontal jumps were performed, associated to leg neuromuscular assessment through electromyography and peripheral nerve stimulations. Actual and imagined pointing tasks were also performed to evaluate fine motor skills, and a full battery of cognitive and psychomotor tests was administered. M1 tDCS improved jump performance accompanied by an increase in supraspinal and spinal excitabilities. dlPFC stimulation only impacted the pointing tasks. No effect on cognitive tests was found for any of the tDCS conditions. To conclude, the type of performance (maximal versus accurate) affected depended upon the tDCS montage. Finally, athletes responded well to tDCS for motor performance while results to cognitive tests seemed unaffected, at least when implemented with the present rationale.

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is promising for improving motor and cognitive performance. Nevertheless, its mechanisms of action are unclear and need to be better characterised according to the stimulated brain area and the type of exercise performed. Methods/design: This is a double-blind crossover study, organised into two parts: the first is to assess the effects of tDCS on explosive performance (jump task) and the second is to assess the effects on endurance performance (cycling time trial task). Participants, who are recreationally active or athletes (parkour practitioners, cyclists), will receive two active tDCS sessions (over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and right motor cortex) and one sham tDCS session (part A), or two sequences (one active and one sham) of two daily tDCS sessions over 5 days (part B). Motor and cognitive performance will be compared before and after tDCS sessions (part A), and before and after the first session, after the last session and at day 12 and day 30 of each tDCS sequence (part B). Discussion: This study investigates the acute and repeated effects of tDCS on the motor and cognitive performance of healthy subjects. It will try to evaluate if tDCS could be considered as a neuroenhancement technology according to the physical task investigated (endurance versus explosive). Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03937115. Registered on 3 May 2019; retrospectively registered.

Risk-taking is part of the multidimensional nature of impulsivity, consisting of an active engagement in behaviors or choices with potentially undesirable results, with probability as the cost for an expected reward. In order to understand the neurophysiological activity during risky behavior and its relationship with other dimensions of impulsivity, we have acquired event-related-potential (ERP) data and self-reported impulsivity scores from 17 non-clinical volunteers. They underwent high-resolution electroencephalography (HR-EEG) combined with an adapted version of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), and completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-10) and the Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation Seeking, Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS). The ERP components were sensitive to valence (FRN, P300) and risk/reward magnitude (SPN, RewP). Our main finding evidenced a positive correlation between the amplitude of the P300 component following positive feedback and both the global UPPS score and the (lack of) perseverance UPPS subscale, significant for several adjacent electrodes. This finding might suggest an adaptive form of impulsive behavior, which could be associated to the reduction on the difference of the P300 amplitude following negative and positive feedback. However, further investigation with both larger clinical and non-clinical samples is required.