Abstract
Stopping an already initiated action is crucial for human everyday behavior and empirical evidence points toward the prefrontal cortex playing a key role in response inhibition. Two regions that have been consistently implicated in response inhibition are the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and the more superior region of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The present study targets both regions with non-invasive brain stimulation to investigate their role in response inhibition. Thus dual-prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was applied to both IFG and DLPFC in a repeated measures design and compared to sham tDCS. Specifically, 9 cm2 electrodes were positioned over both IFG and DLPFC in all groups. The active stimulation groups received off-line, anodal or cathodal tDCS over the IFG and opposite polarity tDCS of the DLPFC, while the sham stimulation group received short stimulation at the start, middle and end of the supposed 20-min stimulation period. Before and after tDCS, subjects’ inhibition capabilities were probed using the stop-signal task (SST). In a final sample of N = 45, participants were randomly split into three groups and received three different stimulation protocols. Results indicated that dual-frontal tDCS did not influence performance as compared to sham stimulation. This null result was confirmed using Bayesian analysis. This result is discussed against the background of the limitations of the present study as well as the potential theoretical implications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
After acceptance to a journal, all data will be uploaded under the same title to PsychArchives (www.psycharchives.org) where the data can be accessed for free by anybody.
Notes
It should be noted that the position of the electrode over the right IFG does not match some of the previous literature. However those studies utilized much larger electrodes and the area of stimulation includes the F8 position (e.g., Jacobson et al. 2011; Ditye et al. 2012; Stramaccia et al. 2015; Cai et al. 2016). Furthermore, based on studies that match EEG 10–20 positions to brain structures, the F8 position most closely correlates with the right IFG (Okamoto et al. 2004).
References
Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2004) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 8:170–177
Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2014) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on. Trends Cogn Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003
Band GPH, van der Molen MW, Logan GD (2003) Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. Acta Psychol (Amst) 112:105–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00079-3
Bikson M, Datta A, Elwassif M (2009) Establishing safety limits for transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol
Bikson M, Esmaeilpour Z, Adair D, Kronberg G, Tyler WJ, Antal A, Datta A, Sabel BA, Nitsche MA, Loo C, Edwards D, Ekhtiari H, Knotkova H, Woods AJ, Hampstead BM, Badran BW, Peterchev AV (2019) Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature. Brain Stimul. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.07.010
Brownsett SLE, Warren JE, Geranmayeh F et al (2014) Cognitive control and its impact on recovery from aphasic stroke. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt289
Cai W, George JS, Verbruggen F et al (2012) The role of the right presupplementary motor area in stopping action: two studies with event-related transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00132.2012
Cai Y, Li S, Liu J et al (2016) The role of the frontal and parietal cortex in proactive and reactive inhibitory control: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. J Cogn Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00888
Castellanos FX, Proal E (2012) Large-scale brain systems in ADHD: beyond the prefrontal-striatal model. Trends Cogn Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.007
Chambers CD, Bellgrove MA, Gould IC et al (2007) Dissociable mechanisms of cognitive control in prefrontal and premotor cortex. J Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00685.2007
de Berker AO, Bikson M, Bestmann S (2013) Predicting the behavioral impact of transcranial direct current stimulation: issues and limitations. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00613
Depue BE, Orr JM, Smolker HR et al (2016) The organization of right prefrontal networks reveals common mechanisms of inhibitory regulation across cognitive, emotional, and motor processes. Cereb Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu324
Dillo W, Göke A, Prox-Vagedes V et al (2010) Neuronal correlates of ADHD in adults with evidence for compensation strategies—a functional MRI study with a Go/No-Go paradigm. GMS Ger Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.3205/000098
Ditye T, Jacobson L, Walsh V, Lavidor M (2012) Modulating behavioral inhibition by tDCS combined with cognitive training. Exp Brain Res 219:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3098-4
Faria P, Hallett M, Miranda PC (2011) A finite element analysis of the effect of electrode area and inter-electrode distance on the spatial distribution of the current density in tDCS. J Neural Eng. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/6/066017
Friehs MA, Frings C (2018) Pimping inhibition: anodal tDCS enhances stop-signal reaction time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000579
Friehs MA, Frings C (2019a) Cathodal tDCS increases stop-signal reaction time. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-019-00740-0
Friehs MA, Frings C (2019b) Offline beats online: single-session tDCS influences on working memory. Neuroreport 30(12):795-799. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000001272
Friehs MA, Dechant M, Vedress S, Frings C, Mandryk RL (2020a) Effective gamification of the stop-signal task: two controlled laboratory experiments. JMIR Serious Games. https://doi.org/10.2196/17810
Friehs MA, Klaus J, Singh T, Frings C, Hartwigsen G (2020b) Perturbation of the right prefrontal cortex disrupts interference control. Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117279
Geranmayeh F, Chau TW, Wise RJS et al (2017) Domain-general subregions of the medial prefrontal cortex contribute to recovery of language after stroke. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx134
Hartwigsen G (2018) Flexible redistribution in cognitive networks. Trends Cogn Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.008
Horvath JC, Carter O, Forte JD (2014) Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we are not discussing (but probably should be). Front Syst Neurosci 8:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002
Hughes ME, Fulham WR, Johnston PJ, Michie PT (2012) Stop-signal response inhibition in schizophrenia: behavioural, event-related potential and functional neuroimaging data. Biol Psychol 89:220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.10.013
Jacobson L, Javitt DC, Lavidor M (2011) Activation of inhibition: Diminishing impulsive behavior by direct current stimulation over the inferior frontal gyrus. J Cogn Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00020
Jahanshahi M, Obeso I, Rothwell JC, Obeso JA (2015) A fronto-striato-subthalamic-pallidal network for goal-directed and habitual inhibition. Nat Rev Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn4038
Jamil A, Batsikadze G, Kuo HI et al (2019) Current intensity- and polarity-specific online and aftereffects of transcranial direct current stimulation: an fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24901
Liebetanz D, Koch R, Mayenfels S et al (2009) Safety limits of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in rats. Clin Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.01.022
Lijffijt M, Kenemans JL, Verbaten MN, Van Engeland H (2005) A meta-analytic review of stopping performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: deficient inhibitory motor control? J Abnorm Psychol 114:216–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.216
Lipszyc J, Schachar R (2010) Inhibitory control and psychopathology: a meta-analysis of studies using the stop signal task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 16:1064–1076. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000895
Liu A, Vöröslakos M, Kronberg G, Henin S, Krause MR, Huang Y, Opitz A, Mehta A, Pack CC, Krekelberg B, Berényi A, Parra LC, Melloni L, Devinsky O, Buzsáki G (2018) Immediate neurophysiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07233-7
Logan GD, Cowan WB, Davis KA (1984) On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:276–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.2.276
Miller EK, Cohen JD (2001) An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:167–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
Miranda PC, Lomarev M, Hallett M (2006) Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1623–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.04.009
Miranda PC, Faria P, Hallett M (2009) What does the ratio of injected current to electrode area tell us about current density in the brain during tDCS? Clin Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.03.023
Moliadze V, Antal A, Paulus W (2010) Electrode-distance dependent after-effects of transcranial direct and random noise stimulation with extracephalic reference electrodes. Clin Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.033
Nee DE, Wager TD, Jonides J (2007) Interference resolution: insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 7:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.1.1
Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM et al (2008) Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimul 1:206–223
Obeso I, Robles N, Marrón EM, Redolar-Ripoll D (2013) Dissociating the role of the pre-SMA in response inhibition and switching: a combined online and offline TMS approach. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00150
Okamoto M, Dan H, Sakamoto K et al (2004) Three-dimensional probabilistic anatomical cranio-cerebral correlation via the international 10–20 system oriented for transcranial functional brain mapping. Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.026
Osada T, Ohta S, Ogawa A et al (2019) An essential role of the intraparietal sulcus in response inhibition predicted by parcellation-based network. J Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2244-18.2019
Rae CL, Hughes LE, Anderson MC, Rowe JB (2015) The prefrontal cortex achieves inhibitory control by facilitating subcortical motor pathway connectivity. J Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3093-13.2015
Sadleir RJ, Vannorsdall TD, Schretlen DJ, Gordon B (2010) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a realistic head model. Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.052
Saturnino GB, Siebner HR, Thielscher A, Madsen KH (2019) Accessibility of cortical regions to focal TES: dependence on spatial position, safety, and practical constraints. Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116183
Schroeder PA, Schwippel T, Wolz I, Svaldi J (2020) Meta-analysis of the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on inhibitory control. Brain Stimul 13:1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.05.006
Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA (2011) Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist 17:37–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410386614
Stramaccia DF, Penolazzi B, Sartori G et al (2015) Assessing the effects of tDCS over a delayed response inhibition task by targeting the right inferior frontal gyrus and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Exp Brain Res 233:2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4297-6
Stramaccia DF, Penolazzi B, Altoè G, Galfano G (2017) TDCS over the right inferior frontal gyrus disrupts control of interference in memory: a retrieval-induced forgetting study. Neurobiol Learn Mem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2017.07.005
Suskauer SJ, Simmonds DJ, Caffo BS et al (2008a) fMRI of intrasubject variability in ADHD: anomalous premotor activity with prefrontal compensation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181825b1f
Suskauer SJ, Simmonds DJ, Fotedar S et al (2008b) Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for abnormalities in response selection in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: differences in activation associated with response inhibition but not habitual motor response. J Cogn Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20032
Swann NC, Cai W, Conner CR et al (2012) Roles for the pre-supplementary motor area and the right inferior frontal gyrus in stopping action: electrophysiological responses and functional and structural connectivity. Neuroimage 59:2860–2870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.049
Swann NC, Tandon N, Pieters TA, Aron AR (2013) Intracranial electroencephalography reveals different temporal profiles for dorsal- and ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex in preparing to stop action. Cereb Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs245
Thielscher A, Antunes A, Saturnino GB (2015) Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: a useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? In: Proceedings of the annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS
Turner GR, McIntosh AR, Levine B (2011) Prefrontal compensatory engagement in TBI is due to altered functional engagement of existing networks and not functional reorganization. Front Syst Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2011.00009
Verbruggen F, Logan GD (2008) Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci 12:418–424
Verbruggen F, Logan GD (2009) Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.014
Verbruggen F, Chambers CD, Logan GD (2013) Fictitious inhibitory differences: how skewness and slowing distort the estimation of stopping latencies. Psychol Sci 24:352–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457390
Verbruggen F, Aron AR, Band GP et al (2019) A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. Elife. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.46323
Vöröslakos M, Takeuchi Y, Brinyiczki K et al (2018) Direct effects of transcranial electric stimulation on brain circuits in rats and humans. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02928-3
Wagenmakers EJ, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HLJ (2011) Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of Psi: comment on Bem (2011). J Pers Soc Psychol 100:426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790
Wagenmakers E-J, Marsman M, Jamil T et al (2018) Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon Bull Rev 25:35–57. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
Woods AJ, Martin DM (2016) Clinical research and methodological aspects for tDCS research, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Clinical Principles and Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33967-2_26
Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M, Boggio PS, Brunoni AR, Celnik P, Cohen LG, Fregni F, Herrmann CS, Kappenman ES, Knotkova H, Liebetanz D, Miniussi C, Miranda PC, Paulus W, Priori A, Reato D, Stagg C, Wenderoth N, Nitsche MA (2016) A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012
Zandbelt BB, Bloemendaal M, Hoogendam JM et al (2013) Transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI reveal cortical and subcortical interactions during stop-signal response inhibition. J Cogn Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00309
Zhang S, Li CSR (2012) Functional networks for cognitive control in a stop signal task: independent component analysis. Hum Brain Mapp. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21197
Zheng X, Alsop DC, Schlaug G (2011) Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human regional cerebral blood flow. Neuroimage 58:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.018
Acknowledgements
We thank Janelle Berscheid for proofreading of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose.
Additional information
Communicated by Winston D Byblow.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Friehs, M.A., Brauner, L. & Frings, C. Dual-tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex does not modulate stop-signal task performance. Exp Brain Res 239, 811–820 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05995-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05995-5