The Time Course of Ineffective Sham Blinding During 1mA tDCS
Robert Greinacher, Larissa Buhôt, Lisa Möller, Gemma LearmonthiD
Abstract
BackgroundStudies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) typically compare the effects of an active (10-30min) relative to a shorter sham (placebo) protocol. Both active and sham tDCS are presumed to be perceptually identical on the scalp, and thus represent an effective method of delivering double-blinded experimental designs. However, participants often show above-chance accuracy when asked which condition involved active/sham retrospectively.\n\nObjective/HypothesisWe aimed to assess the time course of sham-blinding during active and sham tDCS. We predicted that 1) Participants will be aware that the current is switched on for a longer duration in the active versus the sham protocol, 2) Active anodal tDCS will reduce reaction times more effectively than sham.\n\nMethods32 adults were tested in a pre-registered, double-blinded, within-subjects design. A forced-choice reaction time task was undertaken before, during and after active (10min 1mA) and sham (20s 1mA) tDCS. The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (C3) to target the right hand, and the cathode on the right forehead. Two probe questions were asked every 30s: \"Is the stimulation on? \"and \"How sure are you?\".\n\nResultsDistinct periods of non-overlapping confidence intervals were identified between the active and sham conditions, totalling 5min (57.1% of the total difference in stimulation time). These began immediately after sham ramp-down and lasted until the active protocol had ended. Active tDCS had no effect on reaction times compared to sham ({Delta}RT active vs sham p>0.38 in all blocks).\n\nConclusionsWe show a failure of placebo control during low-intensity tDCS.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 71
- FWCI
- 4.96
- Field percentile
- top 4%
- Organism
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Is the "end-of-study guess" a valid measure of sham blinding during transcranial direct current stimulation?
Christopher W. Turner, Catherine M. Jackson, Gemma Learmonth·European Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Oct 24, 2020
- Not Quite All in Our Head: Intervention is a Better Predictor of tDCS Mind-Wandering Effects than Subjective Beliefs About Experimental Results
Matilda S. Gordon, Paul Edmund Dux, Hannah L. Filmer·bioRxiv·Nov 14, 2021
- Effects of tDCS Dosage on Working Memory in Healthy Participants
Stevan Nikolin, Donel M Martin, … Tjeerd W. Boonstra·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Jan 8, 2018
- Expectations May Influence the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Sheida Rabipour, Allan D. Wu, … Marco Iacoboni·NeuropsychologiaPeer-reviewed·Sep 15, 2018
- Stimulating stopping? Investigating the effects of tDCS over the inferior frontal gyri and visual cortices.
Christina Thunberg, Mari S. Messel, … Rene Jürgen Huster·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·May 8, 2020
- Blinding efficacy and adverse events following repeated transcranial alternating current, direct current, and random noise stimulation.
James G. Sheffield, Sumientra M. Rampersad, … Roi Cohen Kadosh·CortexPeer-reviewed·Jun 14, 2022