↓ Skip to main content

Stimulating somatosensory psychophysics: a double-blind, sham-controlled study of the neurobiological mechanisms of tDCS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, October 2015
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Stimulating somatosensory psychophysics: a double-blind, sham-controlled study of the neurobiological mechanisms of tDCS
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00400
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire J. Hanley, Mark Tommerdahl, David J. McGonigle

Abstract

The neuromodulation technique transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is thought to produce its effects on behavior by altering cortical excitability. Although the mechanisms underlying the observed effects are thought to rely on the balance of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission, the physiological principles of the technique are not completely understood. In this study, we examine the influence of tDCS on vibrotactile adaptation, using a simple amplitude discrimination paradigm that has been shown to exhibit modifications in performance due to changes in inhibitory neurotransmission. Double-blind tDCS (Anodal/Sham) of 1 mA was delivered for 600 s to electrodes positioned in a somatosensory/contralateral orbit montage. Stimulation was applied as part of a pre/post design, between blocks of the behavioral tasks. In accordance with previous work, results obtained before the application of tDCS indicated that amplitude discrimination thresholds were significantly worsened during adaptation trials, compared to those achieved at baseline. However, tDCS failed to modify amplitude discrimination performance. Using a Bayesian approach, this finding was revealed to constitute substantial evidence for the null hypothesis. The failure of DC stimulation to alter vibrotactile adaptation thresholds is discussed in the context of several factors that may have confounded the induction of changes in cortical plasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Professor 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 21%
Neuroscience 12 21%
Sports and Recreations 5 9%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,826,358
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#2,396
of 4,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,684
of 278,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#71
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 278,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.