Are participants aware of the type and intensity of transcranial direct current stimulation?

Tang, Matthew F., Hammond, Geoffrey R. and Badcock, David R. (2016) Are participants aware of the type and intensity of transcranial direct current stimulation?. PLoS ONE, 11 2: . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148825


Author Tang, Matthew F.
Hammond, Geoffrey R.
Badcock, David R.
Title Are participants aware of the type and intensity of transcranial direct current stimulation?
Journal name PLoS ONE   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1932-6203
Publication date 2016-02-10
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148825
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 11
Issue 2
Total pages 13
Place of publication San Francisco, United States
Publisher Public Library of Science
Collection year 2017
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is commonly used to alter cortical excitability but no experimental study has yet determined whether human participants are able to distinguish between the different types (anodal, cathodal, and sham) of stimulation. If they can then they are not blind to experimental conditions. We determined whether participants could identify different types of stimulation (anodal, cathodal, and sham) and current strengths after experiencing the sensations of stimulation during current onset and offset (which are associated with the most intense sensations) in Experiment 1 and also with a prolonged period of stimulation in Experiment 2. We first familiarized participants with anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation at both 1 and 2 mA over either primary motor or visual cortex while their sensitivity to small changes in visual stimuli was assessed. The different stimulation types were then applied for a short (Experiment 1) or extended (Experiment 2) period with participants indicating the type and strength of the stimulation on the basis of the evoked sensations. Participants were able to identify the intensity of stimulation with shorter, but not longer periods, of stimulation at better than chance levels but identification of the different stimulation types was at chance levels. This result suggests that even after exposing participants to stimulation, and ensuring they are fully aware of the existence of a sham condition, they are unable to identify the type of stimulation from transient changes in stimulation intensity or from more prolonged stimulation. Thus participants are able to identify intensity of stimulation but not the type of stimulation.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
Queensland Brain Institute Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 15 Mar 2016, 01:03:20 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)