Abstract
Background: Despite a growing literature and commercial market, the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) remains questionable. Notably, studies rarely examine factors such as expectations of outcomes, which may influence tDCS response through placebo-like effects. Here we sought to determine whether expectations could influence the behavioral outcomes of a tDCS intervention.Methods: Through an initial study and self-replication, we recruited 121 naïve young adults 18–34 years of age (M = 21.14, SD = 3.58; 88 women). We evaluated expectations of tDCS and of motor and cognitive performance at three times: (i) at baseline; (ii) after being primed to have High or Low expectations of outcomes; and (iii) after a single session of sham-controlled anodal tDCS over the left or right motor cortex. Before and after stimulation, participants performed the Grooved Pegboard Test and a choice reaction time task as measures of motor dexterity, response time, and response inhibition.Results: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that participants had varying, largely uncertain, expectations regarding tDCS effectiveness at baseline. Expectation ratings significantly increased or decreased in response to High or Low priming, respectively, and decreased following the intervention. Response times and accuracy on motor and cognitive measures were largely unaffected by expectation or stimulation conditions. Overall, our analysis revealed no effect attributable to baseline expectations, belief of group assignment, or experimental condition on behavioral outcomes. Subjective experience did not differ based on expectation or stimulation condition.Conclusions: Our results suggest no clear effects of tDCS or of expectations on our performance measures, highlighting the need for further investigations of such stimulation methods.
Highlights
Stimulating the brain non-invasively to enhance performance using methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation represents an enticing prospect
In both Study 1 and 2, participants rated their expectations of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effectiveness using the Expectation Assessment Scale (EAS), a questionnaire we described in our previous work (Rabipour and Davidson, 2015; Rabipour et al, 2017) and validated for use in this context (Rabipour et al, 2018a), on three occasions: (i) at baseline; (ii) after receiving High or Low expectation priming; and (iii) after the tDCS session
We found that our expectation priming manipulation was effective: participants who were primed to have high expectations of outcomes significantly increased their expectation ratings compared to baseline, whereas those who received low expectation priming significantly decreased their ratings
Summary
Stimulating the brain non-invasively to enhance performance using methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) represents an enticing prospect. A systematic review of neurophysiological outcomes concluded that tDCS had no reliable effect beyond change in motor evoked potentials, a marker of corticospinal excitability (Hallett, 2007), outlining high variability and flawed methodology as limiting factors in comparing and pooling results across existing research (Horvath et al, 2015, 2016) These conclusions have been criticized, in turn, on the ground that the authors attempted to prematurely—and, at times, erroneously—aggregate results of tDCS studies regardless of key differences in protocol and using an inappropriate statistical approach (Antal et al, 2015; Price and Hamilton, 2015). We sought to determine whether expectations could influence the behavioral outcomes of a tDCS intervention
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
