» Articles » PMID: 33746721

Baseline Differences in Anxiety Affect Attention and TDCS-Mediated Learning

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2021 Mar 22
PMID 33746721
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Variable responses to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocols across individuals are widely reported, but the reasons behind this variation are unclear. This includes tDCS protocols meant to improve attention. Attentional control is impacted by top-down and bottom-up processes, and this relationship is affected by state characteristics such as anxiety. According to Attentional Control Theory, anxiety biases attention towards bottom-up and stimulus-driven processing. The goal of this study was to explore the extent to which differences in state anxiety and related measures affect visual attention and category learning, both with and without the influence of tDCS. Using discovery learning, participants were trained to classify pictures of European streets into two categories while receiving 30 min of 2.0 mA anodal, cathodal, or sham tDCS over the rVLPFC. The pictures were classifiable according to two separate rules, one stimulus and one hypothesis-driven. The Remote Associates Test (RAT), Profile of Mood States, and Attention Networks Task (ANT) were used to understand the effects of individual differences at baseline on subsequent tDCS-mediated learning. Multinomial logistic regression was fit to predict rule learning based on the baseline measures, with subjects classified according to whether they used the stimulus-driven or hypothesis-driven rule to classify the pictures. The overall model showed a classification accuracy of 74.1%. The type of tDCS stimulation applied, attentional orienting score, and self-reported mood were significant predictors of different categories of rule learning. These results indicate that anxiety can influence the quality of subjects' attention at the onset of the task and that these attentional differences can influence tDCS-mediated category learning during the rapid assessment of visual scenes. These findings have implications for understanding the complex interactions that give rise to the variability in response to tDCS.

Citing Articles

A review of visual sustained attention: neural mechanisms and computational models.

Huang H, Li R, Zhang J PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15351.

PMID: 37334118 PMC: 10274610. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15351.


Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Provides no Additional Benefit to Improvements in Self-Reported Craving Following Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention.

Gibson B, Votaw V, Stein E, Clark V, Claus E, Witkiewitz K Mindfulness (N Y). 2022; 13(1):92-103.

PMID: 35833199 PMC: 9272998. DOI: 10.1007/s12671-021-01768-5.

References
1.
Hunt A, Olk B, von Muhlenen A, Kingstone A . Integration of competing saccade programs. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004; 19(2):206-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.12.004. View

2.
Corbetta M, Shulman G . Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3(3):201-15. DOI: 10.1038/nrn755. View

3.
Torralba A, Oliva A, Castelhano M, Henderson J . Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global features in object search. Psychol Rev. 2006; 113(4):766-86. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.766. View

4.
Goel V, Tierney M, Sheesley L, Bartolo A, Vartanian O, Grafman J . Hemispheric specialization in human prefrontal cortex for resolving certain and uncertain inferences. Cereb Cortex. 2006; 17(10):2245-50. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhl132. View

5.
Chermahini S, Hommel B . Creative mood swings: divergent and convergent thinking affect mood in opposite ways. Psychol Res. 2011; 76(5):634-40. PMC: 3412079. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0358-z. View