Augmentation of Everyday Problem Solving Abilities Using Transcranial Electric Stimulation

Abstract

Event Abstract Back to Event Augmentation of Everyday Problem Solving Abilities Using Transcranial Electric Stimulation Evangelia G. Chrysikou1* 1 Drexel University, United States Introduction: Studies of creative problem solving using functional neuroimaging measures have revealed that generating novel solutions to everyday problems is associated with reductions in activity over executive control regions (e.g., left prefrontal cortex [PFC], left anterior temporal cortex), and increased activity in posterior or subcortical brain regions (e.g., occipital cortex, inferior parietal lobe; Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2011; Chrysikou et al., 2014). We have further shown that by inhibiting the left inferior lateral PFC using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a noninvasive brain stimulation methodology that alters cortical excitability through the application of small electric currents via electrodes placed on the scalp (Nitsche, & Paulus, 2000, 2001), elicited considerable increases in the speed in which participants generated ideas in an everyday problem solving task involving common objects, as well as augmented the fluency of generation of these ideas. In contrast, inhibiting the right PFC or sham stimulation has not had any consequences for performance on these tasks (Chrysikou, Hamilton, Coslett, Datta, Bikson, & Thompson-Schill, 2013; see also Weinberger, Green, & Chrysikou, 2017). These findings provide strong evidence for a causal relationship between hypofrontality and performance on data-driven, everyday problem solving tasks for which regulatory filtering of perceptual, bottom-up information could impede performance (see Chrysikou, 2018). They further underscore the potential of transcranial electric stimulation as a tool for enhancing human cognition regarding skills that are applicable to many aspects of daily life. On the other hand, there is substantial variability in the robustness of tES‐induced cognitive enhancements that may be largely attributed to small and heterogeneous sample sizes, the scarcity of data on dose‐response effects, and substantial methodological diversity across laboratories (Chrysikou, Berryhill, Bikson, & Coslett, 2017; Hovarth, Carter, & Forte, 2014; Hovarth, Forte, & Carter, 2015a, 2015b). These limitations are exacerbated by a notable lack of understanding of the precise effects of tES on the brain at a mechanistic level and in the context of particular tasks (Giordano et al., 2017). Building on this past work, this project used a comprehensive protocol of different tES montages to investigate the neural bases of creative idea generation by altering neural activity in frontotemporal and occipital cortex regions using tDCS. Method: In a series of experiments, we used a modified computerized version of the Alternative Uses Task. In this task, participants were shown images of everyday objects and were asked to report aloud either the common or an uncommon use for each while undergoing tDCS. Performance on this task was operationalized by voice-onset reaction times and number of response omissions. A forward digit span was also used as a negative control task. Participants received for 20 minutes different montages of excitatory and inhibitory tDCS at 1.5mA administered through two 5cm × 5cm electrodes over right or left frontotemporal cortex, excitatory tDCS over right or left occipital cortex, bilateral stimulation of these regions, or sham stimulation. Importantly, relative to past research, we maintained equivalent sample sizes across conditions from the same participant population, as well as retained the same stimulation device, the same electrodes, the same current strength, the same current duration, and the same experimental and control tasks throughout the study. Results: Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) showed that cathodal stimulation of the left, but not right, PFC elicited shorter reaction times and fewer omissions on the uses task, but had no effects on the control task. Concurrent bilateral stimulation of the PFC regardless of polarity, and excitatory stimulation of the occipital cortex did not alter performance on either task. Discussion: These results extend our past findings and contribute to our understanding of the role of left PFC in creative problem solving, Moreover, they elucidate the precise involvement of this brain region for flexible idea generation. Critically, this study highlights the potential of electrical stimulation—specifically tDCS—as a tool that can be employed toward the augmentation of human cognition in real life settings. References Chrysikou, E. G. (2018). The costs and benefits of cognitive control for creativity. In O. Vartanian and R. E. Jung (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Neuroscience of Creativity (pp. 299-317). Cambridge University Press. Chrysikou, E. G., Berryhill, M. E., Bikson, M., & Coslett, H. B. (2017 ). Revisiting the effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current brain stimulation for cognition: Evidence, challenges, and open Questions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 448. Chrysikou, E. G., Hamilton, R. H., Coslett, H. B., Datta, A., Bikson, M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2013). Non-invasive transcranial direct current stimulation over the left prefrontal cortex facilitates cognitive flexibility in tool use. Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 81-89. Chrysikou, E. G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2011). Dissociable brains states linked to common and creative object use. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 665-675. Chrysikou, E. G., Weber, M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014). A matched filter hypothesis for cognitive control. Neuropsychologia, 62, 341-355. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.10.021. Giordano, J., Bikson, M., Kappenman, E.S., Clark, V.P., Coslett, B., Hamblin, M.R., et al. (2017). Mechanisms and effects of transcranial direct current stimulation. Dose Response, 5, 1-22, doi: 10.1177/1559325816685467. Horvath, J. C., Carter, O., & Forte, J. D. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be). Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 2. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002 Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015a). Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: A systematic review. Neuropsychologia, 66, 213-236. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.021 Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015b). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation, 8(3), 535-550. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.400 Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the humanmotor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of Physiology, 527, 633-639. Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology, 57(10), 1899-1901. Weinberger, A. B., Green, A., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2017). Using transcranial direct current stimulation to enhance creative cognition: Interactions between task, polarity, and stimulation site. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 246. Keywords: Creative Problem Solving, noninvasive brain stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, neuroenhancement, Prefrontal Cortex, augmentation. Conference: 2nd International Neuroergonomics Conference, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 27 Jun - 29 Jun, 2018. Presentation Type: Oral Presentation Topic: Neuroergonomics Citation: Chrysikou EG (2019). Augmentation of Everyday Problem Solving Abilities Using Transcranial Electric Stimulation . Conference Abstract: 2nd International Neuroergonomics Conference. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.227.00124 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 02 Apr 2018; Published Online: 27 Sep 2019. * Correspondence: Dr. Evangelia G Chrysikou, Drexel University, Philadelphia, United States, lilachrysikou@gmail.com Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Evangelia G Chrysikou Google Evangelia G Chrysikou Google Scholar Evangelia G Chrysikou PubMed Evangelia G Chrysikou Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.