Inconsistent Effects of Parietal α-tACS on Pseudoneglect across Two Experiments: A Failed Internal Replication.
Inconsistent Effects of Parietal α-tACS on Pseudoneglect across Two Experiments: A Failed Internal Replication.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00952
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Thut G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Veniero D;Benwell CSY;Ahrens MM;Thut G
经颅电刺激（tES）作为一种实验和临床介入技术正在研究中。虽然有希望，但也发现了重要的局限性，包括弱效应大小和结果的高个体间和个体内变异性。在这里，我们比较了两种被认为具有不同作用机制的“抑制性”tes技术对视觉空间注意力任务的影响，并报告了一项直接复制尝试。在两个实验中，2 × 20名健康参与者在执行感知线平分（地标）任务的同时，分三个独立的阶段进行te测试，测试不同的方案（每次10分钟刺激），蒙太奇靶向右顶叶皮层（右顶叶-左额叶，电极尺寸：3cm × 3cm - 7cm × 5cm）。我们比较了两种tes方案调节伪忽略（被认为是在右半球控制下）的能力。在实验1中，将假tes与经颅α频率（10 Hz; α-tACS）的交流电刺激（预计会引发“抑制性”α振荡）和阴极经颅直流电刺激（c-tDCS）（显示会抑制神经元尖峰活动）进行比较。在实验2中，我们试图重复实验1的结果，并通过在α-tACS和sham中添加45 Hz-tACS条件来建立频率特异性。在实验1中，右顶叶α-tACS导致空间注意偏倚的预期变化，即主观中点估计（相对于假手术）向右移动。然而，这在实验2和整个样本中都没有得到证实。右顶叶c-tDCS和45 Hz-tACS无影响。这些结果强调了重复性研究、充分的统计能力和优化tes干预措施对于建立电刺激效果的稳健性和可靠性以及最佳实践的重要性。
Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is being investigated as an experimental and clinical interventional technique in human participants. While promising, important limitations have been identified, including weak effect sizes and high inter- and intra-individual variability of outcomes. Here, we compared two “inhibitory” tES-techniques with supposedly different mechanisms of action as to their effects on performance in a visuospatial attention task, and report on a direct replication attempt. In two experiments, 2 × 20 healthy participants underwent tES in three separate sessions testing different protocols (10 min stimulation each) with a montage targeting right parietal cortex (right parietal–left frontal, electrode-sizes: 3cm × 3cm–7 cm × 5 cm), while performing a perceptual line bisection (landmark) task. The tES-protocols were compared as to their ability to modulate pseudoneglect (thought to be under right hemispheric control). In experiment 1, sham-tES was compared to transcranial alternating current stimulation at alpha frequency (10 Hz; α-tACS) (expected to entrain “inhibitory” alpha oscillations) and to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) (shown to suppress neuronal spiking activity). In experiment 2, we attempted to replicate the findings of experiment 1, and establish frequency-specificity by adding a 45 Hz-tACS condition to α-tACS and sham. In experiment 1, right parietal α-tACS led to the expected changes in spatial attention bias, namely a rightward shift in subjective midpoint estimation (relative to sham). However, this was not confirmed in experiment 2 and in the complete sample. Right parietal c-tDCS and 45 Hz-tACS had no effect. These results highlight the importance of replication studies, adequate statistical power and optimizing tES-interventions for establishing the robustness and reliability of electrical stimulation effects, and best practice.