↓ Skip to main content

Are Participants Aware of the Type and Intensity of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are Participants Aware of the Type and Intensity of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation?
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew F. Tang, Geoffrey R. Hammond, David R. Badcock

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is commonly used to alter cortical excitability but no experimental study has yet determined whether human participants are able to distinguish between the different types (anodal, cathodal, and sham) of stimulation. If they can then they are not blind to experimental conditions. We determined whether participants could identify different types of stimulation (anodal, cathodal, and sham) and current strengths after experiencing the sensations of stimulation during current onset and offset (which are associated with the most intense sensations) in Experiment 1 and also with a prolonged period of stimulation in Experiment 2. We first familiarized participants with anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation at both 1 and 2 mA over either primary motor or visual cortex while their sensitivity to small changes in visual stimuli was assessed. The different stimulation types were then applied for a short (Experiment 1) or extended (Experiment 2) period with participants indicating the type and strength of the stimulation on the basis of the evoked sensations. Participants were able to identify the intensity of stimulation with shorter, but not longer periods, of stimulation at better than chance levels but identification of the different stimulation types was at chance levels. This result suggests that even after exposing participants to stimulation, and ensuring they are fully aware of the existence of a sham condition, they are unable to identify the type of stimulation from transient changes in stimulation intensity or from more prolonged stimulation. Thus participants are able to identify intensity of stimulation but not the type of stimulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 22%
Neuroscience 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,433,219
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#89,431
of 216,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,154
of 411,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,704
of 5,361 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 411,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,361 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.