↓ Skip to main content

Mapping the Parameter Space of tDCS and Cognitive Control via Manipulation of Current Polarity and Intensity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
119 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.
Article details
Title
Mapping the Parameter Space of tDCS and Cognitive Control via Manipulation of Current Polarity and Intensity
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00665
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In the cognitive domain, enormous variation in methodological approach prompts questions about the generalizability of behavioral findings obtained from studies of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). To determine the impact of common variations in approach, we systematically manipulated two key stimulation parameters-current polarity and intensity-and assessed their impact on a task of inhibitory control (the Eriksen Flanker). Ninety participants were randomly assigned to one of nine experimental groups: three stimulation conditions (anode, sham, cathode) crossed with three intensity levels (1.0, 1.5, 2.0 mA). As participants performed the Flanker task, stimulation was applied over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; electrode montage: F3-RSO). The behavioral impact of these manipulations was examined using mixed effects linear regression. Results indicate a significant effect of stimulation condition (current polarity) on the magnitude of the interference effect during the Flanker; however, this effect was specific to the comparison between anodal and sham stimulation. Inhibitory control was therefore improved by anodal stimulation over the DLPFC. In the present experimental context, no reliable effect of stimulation intensity was observed, and we found no evidence that inhibitory control was impeded by cathodal stimulation. Continued exploration of the stimulation parameter space, particularly with more robustly powered sample sizes, is essential to facilitating cross-study comparison and ultimately working toward a reliable model of tDCS effects.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 23 19%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Master 10 8%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 21%
Unspecified 23 19%
Neuroscience 18 15%
Engineering 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 36 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 January 2017.
All research outputs
#19,931,562
of 32,308,582 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,239
of 8,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,150
of 448,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#99
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,308,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 448,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.