Intervention is a better predictor of tDCS mind-wandering effects than subjective beliefs about experimental results

Blinding in non-invasive brain stimulation research is a topic of intense debate, especially regarding the efficacy of sham-controlled methods for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). A common approach to assess blinding success is the inclusion of correct guess rate. However, this method cannot provide insight into the effect of unblinding on observed stimulation outcomes. Thus, the implementation of measures to systematically evaluate subjective expectation regarding stimulation is needed. Previous work evaluated subjective effects in an earlier study which reported a mind-wandering and tDCS data set and concluded that subjective belief drove the pattern of results observed. Here we consider the subjective and objective intervention effects in a key contrast from that data set-2 mA vs. sham-which was not examined in the reanalysis. In addition, we examine another key contrast from a different tDCS mind-wandering study that employed similar methodology. Our findings support objective intervention as the strongest predictor of the observed effects of mind-wandering in both re-analyses, over and above that of subjective intervention. However, it is important to control for and understand the possible inadequacies of sham-controlled methods.

Automated summary

Blinding in non-invasive brain stimulation research, especially in regards to the efficacy of sham-controlled methods for tDCS, is a highly debated topic. The inclusion of correct guess rate is a common approach to assess blinding success, but it does not provide insight into the effect of unblinding on observed stimulation outcomes. Thus, measures to systematically evaluate subjective expectation regarding stimulation are needed.