4.5 Article

The implications of state-dependent tDCS effects in aging: Behavioural response is determined by baseline performance

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 108-119

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.037

关键词

Attention; Harold model; Non-invasive brain stimulation; Plasticity; Posterior parietal cortex; Pseudoneglect

资金

  1. University of Glasgow College of Science Engineering
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/I02395X/1]
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [1013928] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Young adults typically display a processing advantage towards the left side of space (pseudoneglect), possibly as a result of right parietal dominance for spatial attention. This bias is ameliorated with age, with older adults displaying either no strongly lateralised bias, or a slight bias towards the right. This may represent an age-related reduction of right hemispheric dominance and/or increased left hemispheric involvement. Here, we applied anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) to the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC; R-atDCS), the left PPC (L-atDCS) and a Sham protocol in young and older adults during a titrated lateralised visual detection task. We aimed to facilitate visual detection sensitivity in the contralateral visual field with both R-atDCS and L-atDCS relative to Sham. We found no differences in the effects of stimulation between young and older adults. Instead the effects of atDCS were state-dependent (i.e. related to task performance at baseline). Relative to Sham, poor task performers were impaired in both visual fields by anodal stimulation of the left posterior parietal cortex (PPC). Conversely, good performers maintained sensitivity in both visual fields in response to R-atDCS, although this effect was small. We highlight the importance of considering baseline task ability when designing tDCS experiments, particularly in older adults. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据