Limits...
Improving Interference Control in ADHD Patients with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).

Breitling C, Zaehle T, Dannhauer M, Bonath B, Tegelbeckers J, Flechtner HH, Krauel K - Front Cell Neurosci (2016)

Bottom Line: The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested as a promising alternative to psychopharmacological treatment approaches due to its local and network effects on brain activation.Since participants showed a considerable learning effect from the first to the second session, performance in the first session was separately analyzed.ADHD patients receiving sham stimulation in the first session showed impaired interference control compared to healthy control participants whereas ADHD patients who were exposed to anodal stimulation, showed comparable performance levels (commission errors, reaction time variability) to the control group.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.

ABSTRACT
The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested as a promising alternative to psychopharmacological treatment approaches due to its local and network effects on brain activation. In the current study, we investigated the impact of tDCS over the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) on interference control in 21 male adolescents with ADHD and 21 age matched healthy controls aged 13-17 years, who underwent three separate sessions of tDCS (anodal, cathodal, and sham) while completing a Flanker task. Even though anodal stimulation appeared to diminish commission errors in the ADHD group, the overall analysis revealed no significant effect of tDCS. Since participants showed a considerable learning effect from the first to the second session, performance in the first session was separately analyzed. ADHD patients receiving sham stimulation in the first session showed impaired interference control compared to healthy control participants whereas ADHD patients who were exposed to anodal stimulation, showed comparable performance levels (commission errors, reaction time variability) to the control group. These results suggest that anodal tDCS of the right inferior frontal gyrus could improve interference control in patients with ADHD.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Experimental procedure and task. (A) position of the stimulation electrode, (B) position of the reference electrode, (C) Flanker task, (D) procedure of an experimental session.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834583&req=5

Figure 1: Experimental procedure and task. (A) position of the stimulation electrode, (B) position of the reference electrode, (C) Flanker task, (D) procedure of an experimental session.

Mentions: Each participant received anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS, separated by at least 1 week, while completing a modified Eriksen Flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). The order of tDCS types was pseudo-randomized and counterbalanced and participants were blinded to the type of stimulation they received in each session. For the Flanker task, stimuli consisted of one central target arrow flanked by two arrows on both sides (Figure 1C). Participants had to indicate the direction of the target arrow (right/left) by a button press with the index finger of their right or left hand, respectively. Flanking arrows pointed in the same (congruent stimuli) or opposite direction (incongruent stimuli) as the target arrow. Four resulting arrays were randomly presented with equal frequency. Stimuli were presented with a visual angle of 3.8° with Presentation software (version 16.4, www.neurobs.com).


Improving Interference Control in ADHD Patients with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).

Breitling C, Zaehle T, Dannhauer M, Bonath B, Tegelbeckers J, Flechtner HH, Krauel K - Front Cell Neurosci (2016)

Experimental procedure and task. (A) position of the stimulation electrode, (B) position of the reference electrode, (C) Flanker task, (D) procedure of an experimental session.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834583&req=5

Figure 1: Experimental procedure and task. (A) position of the stimulation electrode, (B) position of the reference electrode, (C) Flanker task, (D) procedure of an experimental session.
Mentions: Each participant received anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS, separated by at least 1 week, while completing a modified Eriksen Flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). The order of tDCS types was pseudo-randomized and counterbalanced and participants were blinded to the type of stimulation they received in each session. For the Flanker task, stimuli consisted of one central target arrow flanked by two arrows on both sides (Figure 1C). Participants had to indicate the direction of the target arrow (right/left) by a button press with the index finger of their right or left hand, respectively. Flanking arrows pointed in the same (congruent stimuli) or opposite direction (incongruent stimuli) as the target arrow. Four resulting arrays were randomly presented with equal frequency. Stimuli were presented with a visual angle of 3.8° with Presentation software (version 16.4, www.neurobs.com).

Bottom Line: The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested as a promising alternative to psychopharmacological treatment approaches due to its local and network effects on brain activation.Since participants showed a considerable learning effect from the first to the second session, performance in the first session was separately analyzed.ADHD patients receiving sham stimulation in the first session showed impaired interference control compared to healthy control participants whereas ADHD patients who were exposed to anodal stimulation, showed comparable performance levels (commission errors, reaction time variability) to the control group.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg Magdeburg, Germany.

ABSTRACT
The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested as a promising alternative to psychopharmacological treatment approaches due to its local and network effects on brain activation. In the current study, we investigated the impact of tDCS over the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) on interference control in 21 male adolescents with ADHD and 21 age matched healthy controls aged 13-17 years, who underwent three separate sessions of tDCS (anodal, cathodal, and sham) while completing a Flanker task. Even though anodal stimulation appeared to diminish commission errors in the ADHD group, the overall analysis revealed no significant effect of tDCS. Since participants showed a considerable learning effect from the first to the second session, performance in the first session was separately analyzed. ADHD patients receiving sham stimulation in the first session showed impaired interference control compared to healthy control participants whereas ADHD patients who were exposed to anodal stimulation, showed comparable performance levels (commission errors, reaction time variability) to the control group. These results suggest that anodal tDCS of the right inferior frontal gyrus could improve interference control in patients with ADHD.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus