Enhancing inhibitory control and risky decision- making with brain stimulation: A randomized and sham-controlled study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/b85p1k65Keywords:
Cognitive Enhancement, Inhibitory Control, Risky Decision-Making, tDCSAbstract
Inhibitory control and risky decision making are critical cognitive functions, particularly to determine more appropriate behaviors that are compatible with achieving goals and preventing unwanted outcomes. Multiple studies have measured the efficacy of brain stimulation to enhance individuals' cognitive abilities. Although some of the results show positive achievements, the generalizability of the results remains open to doubt, particularly in young population contries. Current research examines the effects of cognitive training and brain stimulation to enhancing inhibitory control and risky decision-making in healthy adults in Tehran utilizing computer games training associated with brain stimulation. The experiment involved four groups of 60 healthy volunteers who were residents of Tehran and randomly assigned to groups. A pre-test with post-test analysis, including Go/NoGo and BART tasks used to compare the groups. A single session intervention was applied using 30 minutes of 2 mA tDCS, as well as a computerized game as cognitive training. The control group went under sham-tDCS with a non-cognitive game. Contrary to the various prior studies, the results of the statistical analyses of the data from experimental and control groups showed no meaningful difference. Based on the results of this study, there is no significant effect of rIFG tDCS on the scores of inhibitory control and risky decision-making tasks. This study collected, summarized, and discussed a considerable amount of wide-ranging of relevant investigations. Despite limitations in the number of subjects and stimulation sessions that restricts us to make an exact conclusion, if the same results will appear with the same brain's region, the efficacy of tDCS on enhancing examined functions through rIFG is faced with doubt. It seems that the protocols used in this study require to be repeated in similar studies with more subjects. Furthermore, instead of a single session of intervention, multiple sessions of intervention are suggested.
Downloads
References
[1] Alcaro, R., Alcaro, & Finotello. (2018). Europe and Iran? s Nuclear Crisis. Springer.
[2] Bechara, A. (2005). Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1458.
[3] Beeli, G., Casutt, G., Baumgartner, T., & Jäncke, L. (2008). Modulating presence and impulsiveness by external stimulation of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 4(1), 33.
[4] Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5
[5] Boy, G. A. (2005). Decision making: a cognitive function approach. Of the Seventh International on Naturalistic Decision Making Conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[6] Brain Stimulation Device. (2018). Sinapsycho.
[7] Brunoni, A. R., & Vanderhasselt, M.-A. (2014). Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain and Cognition, 86, 1–9.
[8] Buelow, M. T., & Blaine, A. L. (2015). The assessment of risky decision making: A factor analysis of performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, and Columbia Card Task. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 777.
[9] Cai, Y., Li, S., Liu, J., Li, D., Feng, Z., Wang, Q., Chen, C., & Xue, G. (2016). The role of the frontal and parietal cortex in proactive and reactive inhibitory control: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(1), 177–186.
[10] Campanella, S., Schroder, E., Monnart, A., Vanderhasselt, M.-A., Duprat, R., Rabijns, M., Kornreich, C., Verbanck, P., & Baeken, C. (2017). Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over the Right Frontal Inferior Cortex decreases neural activity needed to achieve inhibition: A double-blind ERP study in a male population. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 48(3), 176–188.
[11] Castro-Meneses, L. J., Johnson, B. W., & Sowman, P. F. (2016). Vocal response inhibition is enhanced by anodal tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 234(1), 185–195.
[12] Cunillera, T., Brignani, D., Cucurell, D., Fuentemilla, L., & Miniussi, C. (2016). The right inferior frontal cortex in response inhibition: A tDCS–ERP co-registration study. NeuroImage, 140, 66–75.
[13] Dambacher, F., Schuhmann, T., Lobbestael, J., Arntz, A., Brugman, S., & Sack, A. T. (2015). No effects of bilateral tDCS over inferior frontal gyrus on response inhibition and aggression. PloS One, 10(7), e0132170.
[14] Daniel, E. L. (2012). The history of Iran. ABC-CLIO.
[15] Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
[16] Ditye, T., Jacobson, L., Walsh, V., & Lavidor, M. (2012). Modulating behavioral inhibition by tDCS combined with cognitive training. Experimental Brain Research, 219(3), 363–368.
[17] Gandiga, P. C., Hummel, F. C., & Cohen, L. G. (2006). Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117(4), 845– 850.
[18] Herwig, U., Satrapi, P., & Schönfeldt-Lecuona, C. (2003). Using the international 10-20 EEG system for positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topography, 16(2), 95–99.
[19] Hildt, E., & Franke, A. G. (2013). Cognitive enhancement. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Dordrecht.
[20] Hogeveen, J., Grafman, J., Aboseria, M., David, A., Bikson, M., & Hauner, K. K. (2016). Effects of high- definition and conventional tDCS on response inhibition. Brain Stimulation, 9(5), 720–729.
[21] Hsu, T.-Y., Tseng, L.-Y., Yu, J.-X., Kuo, W.-J., Hung, D. L., Tzeng, O. J. L., Walsh, V., Muggleton, N. G., & Juan, C.-H. (2011). Modulating inhibitory control with direct current stimulation of the superior medial frontal cortex. Neuroimage, 56(4), 2249–2257.
[22] Hsu, W.-Y., Ku, Y., Zanto, T. P., & Gazzaley, A. (2015). Effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on cognitive function in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurobiology of Aging, 36(8), 2348–2359.
[23] Ilieva, I. P., Hook, C. J., & Farah, M. J. (2015). Prescription stimulants’ effects on healthy inhibitory control, working memory, and episodic memory: a meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(6), 1069– 1089.
[24] Jacobson, L., Ezra, A., Berger, U., & Lavidor, M. (2012). Modulating oscillatory brain activity correlates of behavioral inhibition using transcranial direct current stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(5), 979– 984.
[25] Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rast, P., & Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2014). An empirical comparison of the therapeutic benefits of physical exercise and cognitive training on the executive functions of older adults: A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Neuropsychology, 28(6), 829.
[26] Kelly, M. E., Loughrey, D., Lawlor, B. A., Robertson, I. H., Walsh, C., & Brennan, S. (2014). The impact of cognitive training and mental stimulation on cognitive and everyday functioning of healthy older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 15(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2014.02.004
[27] Kwon, Y. H., & Kwon, J. W. (2013). Response inhibition induced in the stop-signal task by transcranial direct current stimulation of the pre-supplementary motor area and primary sensoriomotor cortex. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 25(9), 1083–1086.
[28] Lampit, A., Hallock, H., & Valenzuela, M. (2014). Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS Medicine, 11(11), e1001756.
[29] Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Jones, H. A., Richards, J. B., Strong, D. R., Kahler, C. W., & Read, J. P. (2003). The balloon analogue risk task (BART) differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(1), 26.
[30] Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., Brown,
R. A., York, N., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., & Strong, D. R. (2002). Evaluation of a Behavioral Measure of Risk Taking : The Balloon Analogue Risk Task ( BART ). 8(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076- 898X.8.2.75
[31] Liu, Q., Zhu, X., Ziegler, A., & Shi, J. (2015). The effects of inhibitory control training for preschoolers on reasoning ability and neural activity. Scientific Reports, 5, 14200.
[32] Lu J., Jain L.C., Z. G. (2012). Risk Management in Decision Making. Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25755-1_1
[33] Malakouti, S. K., Fatollahi, P., Mirabzadeh, A., & Zandi, T. (2007). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the GHQ-28 used among elderly Iranians. International Psychogeriatrics, 19(4), 623–634.
[34] Mehrdad, R. (2009). Health system in Iran. JMAJ, 52(1), 69–73.
[35] Morgan, J. P. (1982). The first reported case of electrical stimulation of the human brain. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 37(1), 51–64.
[36] Mueller, S. T. (2018). The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL)(Version 2.00). Http://Pebl.Sourceforge.Net.
[37] Mueller, Shane T, & Piper, B. J. (2014). The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL Test Battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 222, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024
[38] Munakata, Y., Herd, S. A., Chatham, C. H., Depue, B. E., Banich, M. T., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2011). A unified framework for inhibitory control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 453–459.
[39] Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2011). Transcranial direct current stimulation–update 2011. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 29(6), 463–492.
[40] Noorbala, A. A., Yazdi, S. A. B., Yasamy, M. T., & Mohammad, K. (2004). Mental health survey of the adult population in Iran. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 184(1), 70–73.
[41] Ouellet, J., McGirr, A., Van den Eynde, F., Jollant, F., Lepage, M., & Berlim, M. T. (2015). Enhancing decision-making and cognitive impulse control with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied over the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC): a randomized and sham-controlled exploratory study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 69, 27–34.
[42] Sallard, E., Mouthon, M., De Pretto, M., & Spierer, L. (2018). Modulation of inhibitory control by prefrontal anodal tDCS: A crossover double-blind sham-controlled fMRI study. PLOS ONE, 13(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194936
[43] Schwalb, J. M., & Hamani, C. (2008). The history and future of deep brain stimulation. Neurotherapeutics, 5(1), 3–13.
[44] Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2008). Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 224– 232.
[45] Stramaccia, D. F., Penolazzi, B., Sartori, G., Braga, M., Mondini, S., & Galfano, G. (2015). Assessing the effects of tDCS over a delayed response inhibition task by targeting the right inferior frontal gyrus and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 233(8), 2283–2290.
[46] Summers, J. J., Kang, N., & Cauraugh, J. H. (2016). Does transcranial direct current stimulation enhance cognitive and motor functions in the ageing brain? A systematic review and meta- analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 25, 42–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.11.004
[47] Vahidi Monfared, H., & Moini, A. (2018). A system dynamics model to forecast the population aging in Iran. Kybernetes.
[48] Zamani-Alavijeh, F., Niknami, S., Bazargan, M., Mohammadi, E., Montazeri, A., Ahmadi, F., & Ghofranipour, F. (2009). Accident-related risk behaviors associated with motivations for motorcycle use in Iran: a country with very high traffic deaths. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10(3), 237–242.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
