Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (atDCS) on Sentence Comprehension

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-335
Author(s):  
Jarrad A. G. Lum ◽  
Gillian M. Clark ◽  
Caitlyn M. Rogers ◽  
James D. Skalkos ◽  
Ian Fuelscher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Word Comprehension ◽  
Sham Stimulation ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Comprehension Task

AbstractObjectives: This study examined the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) on sentence and word comprehension in healthy adults. Methods: Healthy adult participants, aged between 19 and 30 years, received either a-tDCS over the left inferior frontal gyrus (n=18) or sham stimulation (n=18). Participants completed sentence comprehension and word comprehension tasks before and during stimulation. Accuracy and reaction times (RTs) were recorded as participants completed both tasks. Results: a-tDCS was found to significantly decrease RT on the sentence comprehension task compared to baseline. There was no change in RT following sham stimulation. a-tDCS was not found to have a significant effect on accuracy. Also, a-tDCS did not affect accuracy or RTs on the word comprehension task. Conclusions: The study provides evidence that non-invasive anodal electrical stimulation can modulate sentence comprehension in healthy adults, at least compared to their baseline performance. (JINS, 2019, 25, 331–335)

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over left inferior frontal gyrus enhances sentence comprehension

2018 ◽  
Vol 176 ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatrice Giustolisi ◽  
Alessandra Vergallito ◽  
Carlo Cecchetto ◽  
Erica Varoli ◽  
Leonor J. Romero Lauro
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

scholarly journals Transcranial direct current stimulation over the left inferior frontal gyrus improves sentence comprehension

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Peristeri ◽  
Zeyi Wang ◽  
Olivia Herrmann ◽  
Brian Caffo ◽  
Constantine Frangakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Far Transfer ◽  
Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

Background. The left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) has been shown to be involved in sentence comprehension in many studies through its involvement in both semantic and syntactic computations. However, causal evidence for its involvement in sentence comprehension is scarce. We used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to test the causal involvement of the left IFG in sentence comprehension in a group of individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA). These individuals participated in a tDCS study targeting lexical retrieval only, not sentence comprehension, therefore in the present study we report on far-transfer effects of tDCS in sentence comprehension. Objective. We sought to determine whether tDCS over the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) coupled with lexical retrieval treatment may improve sentence comprehension in PPA. Method. Within a sham-controlled, double-blind design, we tested whether 15 daily sessions of anodal tDCS over the left IFG may improve sentence comprehension in 27 people with PPA, and whether the tDCS effects were sustained up to two months post-treatment. Results. We found that immediately post-treatment, and up to 2-months post-treatment, there was significantly larger improvement of sentence comprehension in the tDCS condition compared to sham. There were, however, differential effects of tDCS in each PPA variant and sentence-type. Importantly, participants with the epicenter of atrophy over the stimulated area (non-fluent PPA) benefited most from tDCS. Conclusion. TDCS over the left IFG induces far-transfer effects and may improve sentence comprehension in PPA. We provide causal evidence that left IFG is a critical area for sentence comprehension.

scholarly journals Visual Cortex Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Patients: A Double-Blinded Randomized Exploratory Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 270
Author(s):  
Angelito Braulio F. de Venecia ◽  
Shane M. Fresnoza
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Visual Cortex ◽  
Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Vision Loss ◽  
Sham Stimulation ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Residual Vision ◽  
Cathodal Tdcs

Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a severe complication of diabetes. PDR-related retinal hemorrhages often lead to severe vision loss. The main goals of management are to prevent visual impairment progression and improve residual vision. We explored the potential of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to enhance residual vision. tDCS applied to the primary visual cortex (V1) may improve visual input processing from PDR patients’ retinas. Eleven PDR patients received cathodal tDCS stimulation of V1 (1 mA for 10 min), and another eleven patients received sham stimulation (1 mA for 30 s). Visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) scores) and number acuity (reaction times (RTs) and accuracy rates (ARs)) were measured before and immediately after stimulation. The LogMAR scores and the RTs of patients who received cathodal tDCS decreased significantly after stimulation. Cathodal tDCS has no significant effect on ARs. There were no significant changes in the LogMAR scores, RTs, and ARs of PDR patients who received sham stimulation. The results are compatible with our proposal that neuronal noise aggravates impaired visual function in PDR. The therapeutic effect indicates the potential of tDCS as a safe and effective vision rehabilitation tool for PDR patients.

scholarly journals Can Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhance Functionality in Older Adults? A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 2981
Author(s):  
Andrés Pino-Esteban ◽  
Álvaro Megía-García ◽  
David Martín-Caro Álvarez ◽  
Hector Beltran-Alacreu ◽  
Juan Avendaño-Coy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Healthy Older Adults ◽  
Sham Stimulation ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Potential Benefits

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, easy to administer, well-tolerated, and safe technique capable of affecting brain excitability, both at the cortical and cerebellum levels. However, its effectiveness has not been sufficiently assessed in all population segments or clinical applications. This systematic review aimed at compiling and summarizing the currently available scientific evidence about the effect of tDCS on functionality in older adults over 60 years of age. A search of databases was conducted to find randomized clinical trials that applied tDCS versus sham stimulation in the above-mentioned population. No limits were established in terms of date of publication. A total of 237 trials were found, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Finally, nine studies were analyzed, including 260 healthy subjects with average age between 61.0 and 85.8 years. Seven of the nine included studies reported superior improvements in functionality variables following the application of tDCS compared to sham stimulation. Anodal tDCS applied over the motor cortex may be an effective technique for improving balance and posture control in healthy older adults. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the most effective protocols and to clarify potential benefits for older adults.

Transcranial direct current stimulation: Adverse effects and the efficacy of a commonly utilised sham protocol

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S374-S374 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Kortteenniemi ◽  
T. Ali-Sisto ◽  
J. Wikgren ◽  
S. Lehto
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Sham Group ◽  
Control Procedure ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Sham Stimulation ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Cohen's D

IntroductionTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising neuromodulation method that has, for example, been used to treat depression. Nevertheless, the adverse effects of tDCS and the validity of the current standard tDCS sham protocols have received limited attention.ObjectivesTo evaluate the extent and types of tDCS adverse effects and to assess the reliability of sham stimulation as a control procedure for tDCS in a double-blind setting.AimsTo compare adverse effects between tDCS and sham stimulation groups, and to determine how well the participants and the experimenter are able to distinguish tDCS from sham stimulation.MethodsA sample of healthy volunteers received a 20-minute session of either tDCS (n = 41; 2 mA) or sham stimulation (n = 41; ramp up 15 s, ramp down 15 s; no current in between). The anode was placed over F3 and cathode over F4. Both the participants and the experimenter reported immediate adverse effects and the perceived likelihood for the participant to receive tDCS. Analyses were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U-test.ResultsThe tDCS group reported more erythema compared with the sham group (P = 0.016, Cohen's D = 0.444). No other significant differences in adverse effects were observed. In the tDCS group, both the participants (P = 0.034, Cohen's D = 0.612) and the experimenter (P = 0.006, Cohen's D = 0.674) reported a higher perceived likelihood of the participant receiving tDCS than in the sham group.ConclusionstDCS has only modest adverse effects. Nevertheless, the current standard sham protocol appears insufficient.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhances Retention of Visuomotor Stepping Skills in Healthy Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Chiao Tseng ◽  
Shuo-Hsiu Chang ◽  
Kristine M. Hoerth ◽  
Anh-Tu A. Nguyen ◽  
Daniel Perales
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

scholarly journals Blinding is compromised for transcranial direct current stimulation at 1  mA for 20 min in young healthy adults

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 3261-3268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsolt Turi ◽  
Gábor Csifcsák ◽  
Nya Mehnwolo Boayue ◽  
Per Aslaksen ◽  
Andrea Antal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

scholarly journals A New Approach to Assess Blinding for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment in Patients with Fibromyalgia. A Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1335
Author(s):  
Rubén Arroyo-Fernández ◽  
Juan Avendaño-Coy ◽  
Rafael Velasco-Velasco ◽  
Rocío Palomo-Carrión ◽  
Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Sham Stimulation ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

Correct blinding is essential for preventing potential biases. The aim of this study was to assess the blinding of participants and a therapist following treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation in subjects with fibromyalgia using James’ and Bang’s blinding indexes. Eighty subjects were randomly allocated either active or sham stimulation groups in an intervention of five sessions lasting 20 min each. A questionnaire was delivered to both the therapist and patients after the last session to record their guess of which treatment had been applied. No differences between the groups were noted at baseline in terms of demographic or clinical data. James’ BI was 0.83 (CI 95%: 0.76–0.90) for the patients and 0.55 (CI 95%: 0.45–0.64) for the therapist. Bang’s BI for subjects was −0.08 (CI 95%: −0.24–0.09) and −0.8 (CI 95%: −0.26–0.1) for the active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation groups, respectively. Bang’s BI for the therapist was 0.21 (CI 95%: −0.02–0.43) and 0.13 (CI 95%: −0.09–0.35) for the active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation groups, respectively. Protocols of active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation applied in this study have shown satisfactory blinding of the therapist and subjects with fibromyalgia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document