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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neuroscience letters 2016-08, Vol.629, p.105-109
Hauptverfasser: Gözenman, Filiz, Berryhill, Marian E.
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