Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task
•We compared tDCS and HD-tDCS in two attentional orienting working memory (WM) tasks.•An interaction emerged between tDCS type and high/low WM capacity groups.•Low WM capacity participants benefited from HD-tDCS compared to tDCS.•Group differences should be taken into account to understand the stimu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neuroscience letters 2016-08, Vol.629, p.105-109 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 109 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 105 |
container_title | Neuroscience letters |
container_volume | 629 |
creator | Gözenman, Filiz Berryhill, Marian E. |
description | •We compared tDCS and HD-tDCS in two attentional orienting working memory (WM) tasks.•An interaction emerged between tDCS type and high/low WM capacity groups.•Low WM capacity participants benefited from HD-tDCS compared to tDCS.•Group differences should be taken into account to understand the stimulation effects.
There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. A drawback is that the relationship between stimulation and cognitive outcomes for various tasks are unknown. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides diffuse current spread, whereas high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) provides more targeted current. The direction of behavioral effects after tDCS can be difficult to predict in cognitive realms such as attention and working memory (WM). Previously, we showed that in low and high WM capacity groups tDCS modulates performance in nearly equal and opposite directions on a change detection task, with improvement for the high capacity participants alone. Here, we used the retro-cue paradigm to test attentional shifting among items in WM to investigate whether WM capacity (WMC) predicted different behavioral consequences during anodal tDCS or HD-tDCS to posterior parietal cortex (PPC). In two experiments, with 24 participants each, we used different stimulus categories (colored circles, letters) and stimulation sites (right, left PPC). The results showed a significant (Experiment 1) or trending (Experiment 2) WMC x stimulation interaction. Compared to tDCS, after HD-tDCS the retro-cueing benefit was significantly greater for the low WMC group but numerically worse for the high WMC group. These data highlight the importance of considering group differences when using non-invasive neurostimulation techniques. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.056 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4983211</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0304394016304657</els_id><sourcerecordid>1811294757</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-313616cef91c15951d4b5950963a5be1ad2b9d45072b6fff53feccd1c001b1a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU2LFDEQDaK44-o_EMnRS4-pTtI9uQgyu7rCggcVjyGdrqyZ7U7GJL0w_96Ms656EQqqinr16uMR8hLYGhh0b3brgMuEZd3WbM2qye4RWcGmb5te9e1jsmKciYYrwc7Is5x3jDEJUjwlZ23PO8VbuSL2W0y3PtzQGeeYDtSavbG-HOjoncOEoXgzTQfqg5sWDBYzTZj3MeQalUjLxfYzNWGkVxfNr9gHaiqkpNjYBWkx-fY5eeLMlPHFvT8nX99fftleNdefPnzcvrturOh4aTjwDjqLToEFqSSMYqiOqY4bOSCYsR3UKCTr26Fzzknu0NoRLGMwgFH8nLw98e6XYcbR1uWTmfQ--dmkg47G638rwX_XN_FOC7XhLUAleH1PkOKPBXPRs88Wp8kEjEvWsAFolehlX6HiBLUp5pzQPYwBpo_66J0-6aOP-mhWTXa17dXfKz40_Rbkzw1YH3XnMels_fHvo09oix6j__-En6wYpTA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1811294757</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Gözenman, Filiz ; Berryhill, Marian E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gözenman, Filiz ; Berryhill, Marian E.</creatorcontrib><description>•We compared tDCS and HD-tDCS in two attentional orienting working memory (WM) tasks.•An interaction emerged between tDCS type and high/low WM capacity groups.•Low WM capacity participants benefited from HD-tDCS compared to tDCS.•Group differences should be taken into account to understand the stimulation effects.
There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. A drawback is that the relationship between stimulation and cognitive outcomes for various tasks are unknown. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides diffuse current spread, whereas high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) provides more targeted current. The direction of behavioral effects after tDCS can be difficult to predict in cognitive realms such as attention and working memory (WM). Previously, we showed that in low and high WM capacity groups tDCS modulates performance in nearly equal and opposite directions on a change detection task, with improvement for the high capacity participants alone. Here, we used the retro-cue paradigm to test attentional shifting among items in WM to investigate whether WM capacity (WMC) predicted different behavioral consequences during anodal tDCS or HD-tDCS to posterior parietal cortex (PPC). In two experiments, with 24 participants each, we used different stimulus categories (colored circles, letters) and stimulation sites (right, left PPC). The results showed a significant (Experiment 1) or trending (Experiment 2) WMC x stimulation interaction. Compared to tDCS, after HD-tDCS the retro-cueing benefit was significantly greater for the low WMC group but numerically worse for the high WMC group. These data highlight the importance of considering group differences when using non-invasive neurostimulation techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0304-3940</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7972</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.056</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27369325</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Attention - physiology ; Cues ; Group differences ; HD-tDCS ; Humans ; Memory, Short-Term - physiology ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Parietal Lobe - physiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; tDCS ; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation - methods ; Working memory ; Working memory capacity</subject><ispartof>Neuroscience letters, 2016-08, Vol.629, p.105-109</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-313616cef91c15951d4b5950963a5be1ad2b9d45072b6fff53feccd1c001b1a93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-313616cef91c15951d4b5950963a5be1ad2b9d45072b6fff53feccd1c001b1a93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.056$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,781,785,886,3551,27929,27930,46000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27369325$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gözenman, Filiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berryhill, Marian E.</creatorcontrib><title>Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task</title><title>Neuroscience letters</title><addtitle>Neurosci Lett</addtitle><description>•We compared tDCS and HD-tDCS in two attentional orienting working memory (WM) tasks.•An interaction emerged between tDCS type and high/low WM capacity groups.•Low WM capacity participants benefited from HD-tDCS compared to tDCS.•Group differences should be taken into account to understand the stimulation effects.
There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. A drawback is that the relationship between stimulation and cognitive outcomes for various tasks are unknown. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides diffuse current spread, whereas high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) provides more targeted current. The direction of behavioral effects after tDCS can be difficult to predict in cognitive realms such as attention and working memory (WM). Previously, we showed that in low and high WM capacity groups tDCS modulates performance in nearly equal and opposite directions on a change detection task, with improvement for the high capacity participants alone. Here, we used the retro-cue paradigm to test attentional shifting among items in WM to investigate whether WM capacity (WMC) predicted different behavioral consequences during anodal tDCS or HD-tDCS to posterior parietal cortex (PPC). In two experiments, with 24 participants each, we used different stimulus categories (colored circles, letters) and stimulation sites (right, left PPC). The results showed a significant (Experiment 1) or trending (Experiment 2) WMC x stimulation interaction. Compared to tDCS, after HD-tDCS the retro-cueing benefit was significantly greater for the low WMC group but numerically worse for the high WMC group. These data highlight the importance of considering group differences when using non-invasive neurostimulation techniques.</description><subject>Attention - physiology</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Group differences</subject><subject>HD-tDCS</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Memory, Short-Term - physiology</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests</subject><subject>Parietal Lobe - physiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>tDCS</subject><subject>Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Working memory</subject><subject>Working memory capacity</subject><issn>0304-3940</issn><issn>1872-7972</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UU2LFDEQDaK44-o_EMnRS4-pTtI9uQgyu7rCggcVjyGdrqyZ7U7GJL0w_96Ms656EQqqinr16uMR8hLYGhh0b3brgMuEZd3WbM2qye4RWcGmb5te9e1jsmKciYYrwc7Is5x3jDEJUjwlZ23PO8VbuSL2W0y3PtzQGeeYDtSavbG-HOjoncOEoXgzTQfqg5sWDBYzTZj3MeQalUjLxfYzNWGkVxfNr9gHaiqkpNjYBWkx-fY5eeLMlPHFvT8nX99fftleNdefPnzcvrturOh4aTjwDjqLToEFqSSMYqiOqY4bOSCYsR3UKCTr26Fzzknu0NoRLGMwgFH8nLw98e6XYcbR1uWTmfQ--dmkg47G638rwX_XN_FOC7XhLUAleH1PkOKPBXPRs88Wp8kEjEvWsAFolehlX6HiBLUp5pzQPYwBpo_66J0-6aOP-mhWTXa17dXfKz40_Rbkzw1YH3XnMels_fHvo09oix6j__-En6wYpTA</recordid><startdate>20160826</startdate><enddate>20160826</enddate><creator>Gözenman, Filiz</creator><creator>Berryhill, Marian E.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160826</creationdate><title>Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task</title><author>Gözenman, Filiz ; Berryhill, Marian E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-313616cef91c15951d4b5950963a5be1ad2b9d45072b6fff53feccd1c001b1a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Attention - physiology</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Group differences</topic><topic>HD-tDCS</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Memory, Short-Term - physiology</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests</topic><topic>Parietal Lobe - physiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>tDCS</topic><topic>Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Working memory</topic><topic>Working memory capacity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gözenman, Filiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berryhill, Marian E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Neuroscience letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gözenman, Filiz</au><au>Berryhill, Marian E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task</atitle><jtitle>Neuroscience letters</jtitle><addtitle>Neurosci Lett</addtitle><date>2016-08-26</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>629</volume><spage>105</spage><epage>109</epage><pages>105-109</pages><issn>0304-3940</issn><eissn>1872-7972</eissn><abstract>•We compared tDCS and HD-tDCS in two attentional orienting working memory (WM) tasks.•An interaction emerged between tDCS type and high/low WM capacity groups.•Low WM capacity participants benefited from HD-tDCS compared to tDCS.•Group differences should be taken into account to understand the stimulation effects.
There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. A drawback is that the relationship between stimulation and cognitive outcomes for various tasks are unknown. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides diffuse current spread, whereas high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) provides more targeted current. The direction of behavioral effects after tDCS can be difficult to predict in cognitive realms such as attention and working memory (WM). Previously, we showed that in low and high WM capacity groups tDCS modulates performance in nearly equal and opposite directions on a change detection task, with improvement for the high capacity participants alone. Here, we used the retro-cue paradigm to test attentional shifting among items in WM to investigate whether WM capacity (WMC) predicted different behavioral consequences during anodal tDCS or HD-tDCS to posterior parietal cortex (PPC). In two experiments, with 24 participants each, we used different stimulus categories (colored circles, letters) and stimulation sites (right, left PPC). The results showed a significant (Experiment 1) or trending (Experiment 2) WMC x stimulation interaction. Compared to tDCS, after HD-tDCS the retro-cueing benefit was significantly greater for the low WMC group but numerically worse for the high WMC group. These data highlight the importance of considering group differences when using non-invasive neurostimulation techniques.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>27369325</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.056</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0304-3940 |
ispartof | Neuroscience letters, 2016-08, Vol.629, p.105-109 |
issn | 0304-3940 1872-7972 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4983211 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Attention - physiology Cues Group differences HD-tDCS Humans Memory, Short-Term - physiology Neuropsychological Tests Parietal Lobe - physiology Reproducibility of Results tDCS Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation - methods Working memory Working memory capacity |
title | Working memory capacity differentially influences responses to tDCS and HD-tDCS in a retro-cue task |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T13%3A45%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Working%20memory%20capacity%20differentially%20influences%20responses%20to%20tDCS%20and%20HD-tDCS%20in%20a%20retro-cue%20task&rft.jtitle=Neuroscience%20letters&rft.au=G%C3%B6zenman,%20Filiz&rft.date=2016-08-26&rft.volume=629&rft.spage=105&rft.epage=109&rft.pages=105-109&rft.issn=0304-3940&rft.eissn=1872-7972&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.06.056&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1811294757%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1811294757&rft_id=info:pmid/27369325&rft_els_id=S0304394016304657&rfr_iscdi=true |