Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of left and right inferior frontal gyrus on creative divergent thinking are moderated by changes in inhibition control

Abstract

Divergent thinking (DT) as one component of creativity is the ability to search for multiple solutions to a single problem and is reliably tested with the Alternative Uses Task (AUT). DT depends on activity in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), a prefrontal region that has also been associated with inhibitory control (IC). Experimentally manipulating IC through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) led to alterations in DT. Here, we aimed at further examining such potential mediating effects of IC on DT (measured as flexibility, fluency, and originality in the AUT) by modulating IC tDCS. Participants received either cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) of the left IFG coupled with anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) of the right IFG (L−R + ; N = 19), or the opposite treatment (L + R−; N = 21). We hypothesized that L + R− stimulation would enhance IC assessed with the Go NoGo task (GNGT), and that facilitated IC would result in lower creativity scores. The reversed stimulation arrangement (i.e., L− R +) should result in higher creativity scores. We found that tDCS only affected the originality component of the AUT but not flexibility or fluency. We also found no effects on IC, and thus, the mediation effect of IC could not be confirmed. However, we observed a moderation effect: inhibition of left and facilitation of right IFG (L−R +) resulted in enhanced flexibility and originality scores, only when IC performance was also improved. We conclude that inducing a right-to-left gradient in IFG activity by tDCS is efficient in enhancing DT, but only under conditions where tDCS is sufficient to alter IC performance as well. Keywords Creativity • Divergent thinking (DT) • AUT (alternative uses task) • Fluency • Originality • Flexibility • tDCS • IFG Abbreviations AP Action potentials AUT Alternative uses task DT Divergent thinking EFs Executive functions GNGT Go No Go task IC Inhibitory control IFG Inferior frontal gyrus PFC Prefrontal cortex rDLPFC Right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex tDCS Transcranial direct current stimulation Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Evaluating the predictive validity of four divergent thinking tasks for the originality of design product ideation

“…Based on the outcomes of this study, it is clear that there is no singular measure that is sufficient to fully predict originality scores for a Design Product Ideation task. Despite the heavy reliance on AUT in creativity research, including in cognitive neuroscience studies of creativity [ 62 – 64 ], the present study found that although AUT originality was predictive of Design Product Ideation performance at pre-test, it was not significantly predictive at post-test when other predictive factors were included in a multiple regression model. In contrast, FIQ originality was predictive of Design Product Ideation originality at both pre- and post-test.…”

Proximity and Touch are associated with Neural but not Physiological Synchrony in Naturalistic Mother-Infant Interactions

“…On the other hand, INS inferior frontal areas did not differ between conditions and was neither increased in free play nor the proximate watching condition. The many functions associated with inferior frontal areas, such as language, inhibition and empathy, make it difficult pinpoint as to why mother-infant dyads did not show neural synchronization in that area (Khalil, Karim, Kondinska, & Godde, 2020;Shamay-Tsoory, Aharon-Peretz, & Perry, 2009;Wang, Yang, Zhao, Zuo, & Tan, 2020). It seems that INS in the IFG as part of the social interaction network proposed by Redcay and Schilbach (Redcay & Schilbach, 2019) was not yet synchronized during these early caregiver-infant interactions.…”

The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Error Rates in the Distractor-Induced Deafness Paradigm

“…For left anodal stimulation, the anode was placed on F7 and the cathode on F8 and for right anodal stimulation, vice versa. The placement of electrodes was chosen as such because, in this position, frontal brain areas are stimulated well without spreading too much to other cortical areas [ 18 , 19 ]. We preferred this montage primarily to keep more posterior areas out of stimulation since the neuro-computational model [ 8 ] also includes the basal ganglia, thalamus, and motor areas.…”