TDCS to the Left DLPFC Modulates Cognitive and Physiological Correlates of Executive Function in a State-dependent Manner

Overview

Journal Brain Stimul

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Neurology

Date 2019 Jun 22

PMID 31221553

Citations 55

Authors

Laura Dubreuil-Vall

Peggy Chau

Giulio Ruffini

Alik S Widge

Joan A Camprodon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The use of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to study anatomical and physiological dynamics and circuits supporting cognition and executive functions in particular has dramatically increased in recent years. However, its mechanisms of action remain only partially understood.

Objective: In this study we assess the cognitive and physiological effects of anodal tDCS to the DLPFC on executive function in order to understand (1) the role of DLPFC laterality, (2) the physiological dynamics sustaining the modulation of executive function by tDCS, and (3) the impact of state-dependent dynamics.

Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, we applied anodal tDCS targeting the left vs. right DLPFC vs. sham in 20 healthy individuals (10 males, 10 females). Immediately before and after tDCS, subjects performed the Flanker Task while we measured behavioral (reaction time and accuracy) and neurophysiological (ERP) responses. Specifically, the amplitude of N200, P300, ERN and Pe is compared before and after stimulation.

Results: Anodal tDCS to the left DLPFC lead to a significant improvement in reaction time, an increase in P300 amplitude and a decrease in N200 amplitude in a state-dependent manner: baseline ERP amplitudes conditioned the effects of tDCS.

Conclusion: Given the role of these ERPs in conflict-related tasks, we speculate that tDCS is modulating the subconstructs of selective attention, conflict monitoring and response inhibition. These findings contribute to a further understanding of the role of left DLPFC in the modulation of executive function, and shed light into the mechanisms of action and the state dependent nature of tDCS.

Citing Articles

Evidence of physiological changes associated with single-session pre-frontal tDCS: a pilot study.

Rembrandt H, Riley E Front Hum Neurosci. 2025; 19:1549248.

PMID: 40070489 PMC: 11893991. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1549248.

Predicting the Beneficial Effects of Cognitive Stimulation and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment with Clinical, Inflammation, and Human Microglia Exposed to Serum as Potential Markers: A Double-Blind....

Alcala-Lozano R, Carmona-Hernandez R, Ocampo-Romero A, Sosa-Millan A, Morelos-Santana E, Abarca D Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 26(4).

PMID: 40004217 PMC: 11855719. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26041754.

Neurostimulation to Improve Cognitive Flexibility.

Sachse E, Widge A Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2025; 62.

PMID: 39925871 PMC: 11804887. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101484.

Boosting Psychotherapy With Noninvasive Brain Stimulation: The Whys and Wherefores of Modulating Neural Plasticity to Promote Therapeutic Change.

Saccenti D, Lauro L, Crespi S, Moro A, Vergallito A, Grgic R Neural Plast. 2024; 2024:7853199.

PMID: 39723244 PMC: 11669434. DOI: 10.1155/np/7853199.

Effect of Low-intensity Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Response Inhibition of Adults With Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Mahjoubnavaz F, Khosrowabadi E, Latifi F, Kazem Y, Gholizadeh Soltani J, Khalilpour H Basic Clin Neurosci. 2024; 15(4):531-540.

PMID: 39553257 PMC: 11565665. DOI: 10.32598/bcn.2022.4707.1.

References

Larson M, Clayson P, Clawson A . Making sense of all the conflict: a theoretical review and critique of conflict-related ERPs. Int J Psychophysiol. 2014; 93(3):283-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.06.007. View

Enriquez-Geppert S, Konrad C, Pantev C, Huster R . Conflict and inhibition differentially affect the N200/P300 complex in a combined go/nogo and stop-signal task. Neuroimage. 2010; 51(2):877-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.043. View

Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Christ S, Hohnsbein J . ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: a tutorial. Biol Psychol. 2000; 51(2-3):87-107. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0511(99)00031-9. View

Danielmeier C, Wessel J, Steinhauser M, Ullsperger M . Modulation of the error-related negativity by response conflict. Psychophysiology. 2009; 46(6):1288-98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00860.x. View

Widge A, Zorowitz S, Basu I, Paulk A, Cash S, Eskandar E . Deep brain stimulation of the internal capsule enhances human cognitive control and prefrontal cortex function. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1):1536. PMC: 6449385. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09557-4. View

Clayson P, Larson M . Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia. 2011; 49(7):1953-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.023. View

Tremblay A, Newman A . Modeling nonlinear relationships in ERP data using mixed-effects regression with R examples. Psychophysiology. 2014; 52(1):124-39. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12299. View

Lapenta O, Sierve K, de Macedo E, Fregni F, Boggio P . Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates ERP-indexed inhibitory control and reduces food consumption. Appetite. 2014; 83:42-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.005. View

Clayson P, Larson M . Effects of repetition priming on electrophysiological and behavioral indices of conflict adaptation and cognitive control. Psychophysiology. 2011; 48(12):1621-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01265.x. View

10.

Ruffini G, Fox M, Ripolles O, Miranda P, Pascual-Leone A . Optimization of multifocal transcranial current stimulation for weighted cortical pattern targeting from realistic modeling of electric fields. Neuroimage. 2013; 89:216-25. PMC: 3944133. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.002. View

11.

Powell T, Boonstra T, Martin D, Loo C, Breakspear M . Modulation of cortical activity by transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with affective disorder. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e98503. PMC: 4051608. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098503. View

12.

Philip N, Nelson B, Frohlich F, Lim K, Widge A, Carpenter L . Low-Intensity Transcranial Current Stimulation in Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2017; 174(7):628-639. PMC: 5495602. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16090996. View

13.

Breitling C, Zaehle T, Dannhauer M, Bonath B, Tegelbeckers J, Flechtner H . Improving Interference Control in ADHD Patients with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Front Cell Neurosci. 2016; 10:72. PMC: 4834583. DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2016.00072. View

14.

Bikson M, Grossman P, Thomas C, Zannou A, Jiang J, Adnan T . Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016. Brain Stimul. 2016; 9(5):641-661. PMC: 5007190. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.004. View

15.

Keeser D, Meindl T, Bor J, Palm U, Pogarell O, Mulert C . Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation changes connectivity of resting-state networks during fMRI. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(43):15284-93. PMC: 6703525. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0542-11.2011. View

16.

Ford J . Schizophrenia: the broken P300 and beyond. Psychophysiology. 1999; 36(6):667-82. View

17.

Silvanto J, Pascual-Leone A . State-dependency of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topogr. 2008; 21(1):1-10. PMC: 3049188. DOI: 10.1007/s10548-008-0067-0. View

18.

Daffner K, Searl M . The dysexecutive syndromes. Handb Clin Neurol. 2008; 88:249-67. DOI: 10.1016/S0072-9752(07)88012-2. View

19.

Kopp B, Rist F, Mattler U . N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control. Psychophysiology. 1996; 33(3):282-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb00425.x. View

20.

Karuza E, Balewski Z, Hamilton R, Medaglia J, Tardiff N, Thompson-Schill S . Mapping the Parameter Space of tDCS and Cognitive Control via Manipulation of Current Polarity and Intensity. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017; 10:665. PMC: 5187365. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00665. View