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

Performance for first sessions in different tDCS conditions. (A) Commission errors, (B) reaction time variability, *p < 0.05, error bars represent one standard deviation.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 3: Performance for first sessions in different tDCS conditions. (A) Commission errors, (B) reaction time variability, *p < 0.05, error bars represent one standard deviation.

Mentions: A marginally significant interaction between tDCS stimulation and group showed that patients tended to respond more strongly to stimulation than controls [F(2,36) = 2.71, p = 0.08] (Figure 3A). ADHD patients who received sham stimulation made more commission errors (mean: 20.57%) than controls (mean: 12.08%) [t(12) = -1.92, p < 0.05] and ADHD patients receiving anodal stimulation had lower commission error rates (mean: 9.82%) than those who received sham stimulation [t(12) = -2.44, p = 0.02]. In the control group, there was no effect of tDCS (anodal: 13.21%, sham: 12.08%). Thus, the commission error rate in ADHD patients who received anodal tDCS was at the same level as in healthy controls. Cathodal tDCS did not differ from sham tDCS in both groups (ADHD: 14.45%, controls: 8.97%).


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)

Performance for first sessions in different tDCS conditions. (A) Commission errors, (B) reaction time variability, *p < 0.05, error bars represent one standard deviation.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 3: Performance for first sessions in different tDCS conditions. (A) Commission errors, (B) reaction time variability, *p < 0.05, error bars represent one standard deviation.
Mentions: A marginally significant interaction between tDCS stimulation and group showed that patients tended to respond more strongly to stimulation than controls [F(2,36) = 2.71, p = 0.08] (Figure 3A). ADHD patients who received sham stimulation made more commission errors (mean: 20.57%) than controls (mean: 12.08%) [t(12) = -1.92, p < 0.05] and ADHD patients receiving anodal stimulation had lower commission error rates (mean: 9.82%) than those who received sham stimulation [t(12) = -2.44, p = 0.02]. In the control group, there was no effect of tDCS (anodal: 13.21%, sham: 12.08%). Thus, the commission error rate in ADHD patients who received anodal tDCS was at the same level as in healthy controls. Cathodal tDCS did not differ from sham tDCS in both groups (ADHD: 14.45%, controls: 8.97%).

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