Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: He, Qinga; b; 1 | Lin, Bo-Ronga; b; 1 | Zhao, Jina; b | Shi, Ying-Zhena; b | Yan, Fang-Fanga; b; * | Huang, Chang-Binga; b; *
Affiliations: [a] Key Laboratory of Behavioral Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China | [b] Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding authors. Chang-Bing Huang and Fang-Fang Yan, Institute of Psychology, CAS, Beijing, 100101; China. E-mails: huangcb@psych.ac.cn (C.-B. Huang) and yanff@psych.ac.cn (F.-F. Yan).
Note: [1] The authors contributed to this article equally.
Abstract: Background:Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a well-established non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has been widely applied to modulate cortical excitability in human brain. The results of previous tDCS studies on modulating contrast sensitivity, one of the most fundamental visual functions, were mixed. Objective:We aim to systematically investigate the effects of anodal tDCS on contrast sensitivity functions (CSF), evaluate the responsiveness explanation of tDCS effects, and discuss results along with measurement precision. Methods:We designed a single-blinded, sham-controlled within-subject study. Twenty-seven healthy adult subjects received three sets of 15 min tDCS (two 2-mA anodal and one sham) that delivered at Oz, with CSF measured before and after each tDCS stimulation. Experimental sessions were separated by at least twenty-four hours. CSF was assessed with a Bayesian procedure that accurately estimated CSF within minutes. The anodal tDCS-induced effect was gauged with the change in CSF after stimulation; responsiveness was indexed by correlation between CSF changes in different stimulation; precision was calculated from resampling. Results:Our results indicated that neither the first nor the second session anodal tDCS altered the CSF significantly. Responsiveness was inconsistent between the two anodal sessions, indicating the usual responder/non-responder explanation of tDCS effects was unconvincing. Precision was less than 2 dB and constant throughout the whole experiment. Conclusions:The anodal tDCS, at least with two sessions, has no effect on modulating CSF. The absence of anodal tDCS effect on CSF was not due to subject’s responsiveness to tDCS or measurement precision. More studies were needed to determine the optimal vision modulation configuration.
Keywords: Transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS, contrast sensitivity function, CSF, vision, non-invasive brain stimulation
DOI: 10.3233/RNN-180881
Journal: Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 109-118, 2019
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
sales@iospress.com
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
info@iospress.nl
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office info@iospress.nl
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
china@iospress.cn
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: editorial@iospress.nl