Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Use in Warfighting: Benefits, Risks, and Future Prospects

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique which provides unique potential to directly improve human capability on a temporary, at needs, basis. The purpose of this paper is to consider the utility of tDCS through analysis of the potential risks and benefits in the context of defence service personnel. First, we look at the potential benefits, focusing primarily on warfighter survivability and enriching cognition quality in support of command and control. Second, we look at the potential detriments to tDCS military use, focusing on adverse effects, safety considerations, and risk. Third, we examine how the level of risk can be mitigated through military doctrine development focusing on safety parameters and exclusion criteria. Finally, we explore the future prospects of military tDCS use, particularly in terms of addressing gaps in the literature so that tDCS can be used ethically and efficaciously at the level of individual personnel.

Introduction

The aspiration to increase cognitive and physical performance to foster protection from predators is nothing new. The boundaries of human performance have been tested and pushed through methods such as physical training, education, technology, and religion, for centuries (Levasseur-Moreau et al., 2013). More recently, evidence has emerged that aspects of cognition and motor performance can be enhanced through a technique called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). tDCS is a non-invasive¹ technique that modulates cortical tissue excitability, increasing or decreasing cerebral activity by applying a very low direct current (usually no more than 2 mA; 0.06 mA/cm² over a 35 cm² pad) from electrodes placed on the scalp. Approximately half of the current delivered to the head reaches and stimulates the brain (Dymond et al., 1975). Research has shown a wide range of cognitive effects, mainly dependent on the site and polarity of stimulation (the montage), and duration and pattern of current flow (the protocol). Generally brain function is increased under the positive anode; with either little effect or decreased function under the cathodal placement site (Jacobson et al., 2012). tDCS does not directly cause or block the firing of neurons; the immediate effects are thought to be a result of polarity-specific shifts in resting membrane potential (Sparing and Mottaghy, 2008). Enhancement effects of tDCS last beyond the duration of stimulation and can be detected up to 24 h after stimulation (depending on the montage, protocol, and cognitive aspect tested; Utz et al., 2010). The mechanism for these enduring effects are thought to be a result of long-term potentiation and long-term depression of neuronal synapses (Nitsche et al., 2008).

The utility of cognitive enhancement techniques have been examined by a number of authors, and non-invasive brain stimulation has been found to offer significant socioeconomic benefits, such as increasing productivity and growth (Buchanan, 2008), reducing inequality (Hai and Heckman, 2017), and encouraging social justice (Savulescu, 2006). However, these outcomes have little relevance in the context of enhancement for the military purposes considered in this paper. The utility of cognitive enhancement is different in military situations, as benefits must be weighed against the potential harms in circumstances where the ability to complete objectives safely and make better decisions can mean the difference between life and death (Wolfendale, 2008; McKinley et al., 2012).

The main purpose of this paper is to examine whether tDCS use can be ethical and efficacious in the enhancement of military personnel. First, an overview of the potential benefits of tDCS in terms of expanding warfighter-level capability and command and control decision making is provided. This is followed by a discussion of the potential harms the technology may produce for the military, including safety issues, adverse effects, risk of hitherto unobserved and undetected effects, risk of self-administration by military personnel, and how these issues represent a threat to military capability. Additionally, we examine how some of these risks can be mitigated. While it is not the purpose of the paper to propose a comprehensive set of guidelines covering military tDCS use, a number of recommendations are provided that can inform future doctrine development, including safety parameters and exclusion criteria. This section provides a frame of reference for the assumptions that are applied to the discussion of safety and risk. Finally, we identify the future prospects of tDCS use in the military, focusing on gaps in the existing literature which need to be addressed so that tDCS can be delivered ethically and efficaciously, and with the predictable and reliable individual-level effects that are required so that harm to military capability can be avoided.

Value to Defence

National security involves a number of aspects of military defence, including warfighting, activity in preparation for war, and measures to prevent war (Paleri, 2008). While the core fundamental skills of soldiering have remained stable over time (movement, communication, and operating weapons; United States Department of the Army, 2005), the full gamut of defence activities has become increasingly complex. Seemingly straightforward skills must be coordinated and performed under great stress in dynamic, demanding, and unpredictable environments². Conceptually, coordinated military action is achieved via three core elements of command and control: capability, which is utilised to achieve intent, given awareness (Lambert and Scholz, 2007). The rapid development of equipment, weapons, and systems means that warfighters operate in increasingly complex environments (Redmore, 2009), and high quality cognition is required in support of command and control (e.g., van Creveld, 1985; Storr, 2009). However, ever-increasing decision speed and data volume processing requirements are becoming progressively more mismatched with current human capabilities (United States Air Force Chief Scientist, 2010), and the ability to perform at the necessarily high level is hindered by the fact that every aspect of cognitive performance is degraded under the stress of combat conditions (Lieberman et al., 2005). In this section, the potential of tDCS to bridge this gap by supporting warfighter command and control is explored across the three core areas; achieving situational awareness, the formation (and communication) of intent, and capability.

The ability to make quick assessments of complex and rapidly changing situations is vital across all service branches and ranks, so maintaining situational awareness is an essential prerequisite of performing tasks in real-time (Tirre and Gugerty, 1999). A review conducted by Hartel et al. (1991) concluded that situational awareness deficits were the primary cause of military aviation related incidents, and Murray et al. (2010) attributed the majority of critical incidents involving naval Marine Corps infantry to failures of perception regarding consequential environmental or situational features. As presented in Table 1, there are signs that tDCS could improve a number of cognitive aspects relating to the attainment and maintenance of situation awareness. As well as the functioning of the perceptual senses (e.g., visual and auditory) themselves, attention and working memory are critical factors underlying in the acquisition of information in support of situational awareness (Ribeaux and Poppleton, 1978; Endsley, 1995).

Coordinated action must be achieved through the establishment of common intent (Pigeau and McCann, 2000). Commanders are tasked with making sound judgments and decisions while facing complex problems in unpredictable situations (Crabbe, 2000), so highly sophisticated cognitive skills are required to support commanders’ ability to form achievable intent (Allen and Gerras, 2009). Increasingly, decision-making authority is dispersed to lower ranks as increasing warfare dynamism requires a higher level of decision making immediacy to exploit time-limited tactical opportunities (i.e., “mission command”; Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2012; Australian Army, 2017). This shift towards decentralisation of command initiative means that the levels of command are unavoidably blurred (Pigeau and McCann, 2000), so the requirement to make sound decision-making is increasingly applicable down the chain. tDCS has shown the potential to improve a number of aspects of cognition relevant to the formulation of intent, including planning, problem solving, probabilistic assessment, and acceptance of risk³. Once intent is reached, it must be shared through effective and efficient communication in order to achieve coordinated action (Pigeau and McCann, 2000). As shown in Table 2, tDCS has shown potential in both the formation and communication of intent.

The third component of the trinity of elements associated with achieving coordinated action (Lambert and Scholz, 2007) is capability. Warfighters need sufficient and specific levels of mental and physical preparedness to be capable of carrying out commanders’ intent (Royal Australian Air Force, 2017; Australian Army, 2018), and tDCS shows promise in a number of areas related to the capability of individual warfighters, including physical competence, training and education, and resilience. The areas of tDCS which show promise in assisting personnel to increase their capability to complete demanding undertakings while managing physical and psychological stressors are presented in Table 3.

Risks

There has been a great deal of research on the safety of tDCS which indicates that the technique is broadly safe, and does not cause permanent or severe damage or discomfort when used according to appropriate guidelines (such as those suggested in the Risk Mitigation section of the present paper). In a meta-analysis conducted by Brunoni et al. (2011) which examined the effects of tDCS in humans in every available paper from 1998 to 2010, no serious or ongoing side effects were reported. However, tDCS is not entirely risk-free. The technique is still relatively new, and has been associated with mild and transient discomfort in some people, including reported tingling, itching, and burning sensations under the electrodes.

The most common adverse effect of tDCS is a mild burning/itching sensation at the point of contact with the electrodes (Been et al., 2007). Light itching under the stimulation electrodes occurs in approximately 30% of cases (Poreisz et al., 2007). Although sensory side effects are reasonably common, severity is typically low (Kessler et al., 2012). Falcone et al. (2012) conducted a study in which participants rated each common sensation on a 10 point Likert scale, where 1 indicated no sensation and 10 indicated extreme sensation. Mean scores in the active condition for itching, heat, and tingling were 1.81, 1.44, and 2.51, respectively. The most serious adverse effects were two reported cases of skin lesions following repeated tDCS sessions (Palm et al., 2008; Frank et al., 2010). The authors suggested that an accumulation of impurities from tap water on the electrodes caused the reaction. The risk of both skin lesions and itching/burning sensations can be minimised by soaking the connecting sponges in sodium chloride (saline) solution rather than water before commencement of stimulation (DaSilva et al., 2011).

Mild headaches are sometimes observed. They are generally brief and are more commonly reported by frequent headache sufferers (e.g., 3.9% in healthy subjects vs. 11.1% in migraine patients; Poreisz et al., 2007). Some studies have reported a higher incidence of headaches in sham conditions than active stimulation conditions (14.8% active vs. 16.2% sham; Brunoni et al., 2011), though these findings have not been consistent across studies (e.g., Kessler et al., 2012). The extent to which headaches are a direct effect of tDCS is unclear, with secondary factors (such as pressure from the strap that keeps the electrodes in place) likely also playing a role. Nausea has been also experienced within 2 h of tDCS, though such reports are infrequent (less than 3% of participants; Poreisz et al., 2007).

Fatigue is sometimes reported by participants following tDCS studies. For example, Brunoni et al. (2011) found that a small to moderate level of fatigue was experienced by 35.3% of participants. However, it is not clear whether fatigue is directly caused by the stimulation itself, or is the result of a secondary cause such as an increase in concentration to complete the tasks that are often completed in conjunction with tDCS (i.e., what is being measured by the particular study; often problem solving related tasks), or by an increase in nervous energy experienced by participants undergoing an unfamiliar technique involving wires, straps, and electrodes. Conversely, there is evidence that particular stimulation montages can in fact reduce fatigue (e.g., McIntire et al., 2017b).

Overall, transient minor discomfort is present in about 10.4–17.7% of participants (Poreisz et al., 2007; Brunoni et al., 2011); not acute enough to cause subjects to request early termination of stimulation. Nevertheless, all documented adverse effects need to be considered and managed in any military tDCS programme. It is the view of the current authors that since all documented harms are either minor or can be mitigated, there is no case for dismissing military tDCS use on the basis of reported adverse effects. However, the potential for delayed and/or unknown harms also need to be considered.

Given the relative recency of tDCS, it is possible that hitherto unencountered effects could later emerge in some people. Long-term risk falls broadly into two categories: delayed effects that emerge after short term use, and cumulative harm following prolonged use. Although tDCS has only become heavily researched in recent years, the possibility of delayed adverse effects is somewhat mitigated by the fact that various forms of direct current have been used for over 100 years (e.g., for the treatment of melancholy in 1804; Fox, 2011), yet no delayed effects have been documented to date. tDCS has been heavily studied over the last decade, and although it is not clear whether it may cause negative consequences that take more than 10 years to materialise, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Risks associated with prolonged use are not well understood either. Given evidence that repetitive daily tDCS can lead to lasting long-term targeted changes (Agnew and McCreery, 1987), it follows that repetitive tDCS could cause long-lasting detrimental effects. Overall, little is known about either form of long-term risk, but there is currently no evidence that tDCS causes long-term damage when used within appropriate guidelines.

It is currently unclear how cognitive functioning in non-target areas is effected by tDCS. The precise path the electrical current follows is not fully understood (McKinley et al., 2012) and cannot easily be controlled, so brain regions interconnected to the target area under the electrodes could receive a portion of the current (Sadleir et al., 2010). Subsequent activations and deactivations associated with electrical stimulation can even occur in remote locations across both cerebral hemispheres (Utz et al., 2010). Moreover, activity in areas of the brain not directly under the electrodes may be reduced, creating an overall equilibrium between the cognitive areas of interest and other cognitive areas (Hilgetag et al., 2001). While most tDCS studies report enhancement of function, measures are generally limited to a specific area of cognition relating to the identified functional specialisation of the underlying brain region. Brem et al. (2014) describe a “net zero-sum model” in which the principle of conservation of energy governs the allocation of brain resources. This represents a risk in the military, where the possibility of unpredictable cognitive or physical deficits could make already dangerous military situations even riskier. More research employing multiple assessments across various areas of cognition needs to be conducted.

It is also unknown whether tDCS has the potential to be addictive. Because the neurotransmitter dopamine is involved in both the reward-related processes associated with addiction (Nutt et al., 2015) and high level cognitive functioning (e.g., Nieoullon, 2002; Cools, 2011), many forms of cognitive enhancement have been found to be addictive (such as central nervous system stimulants; Dackis and Gold, 2008). There is some limited evidence associating tDCS with altered dopamine levels (e.g., Fonteneau et al., 2018), but it is unclear whether this association is a result of direct dopaminergic modulation (such as is the case with stimulants like amphetamines and modafinil; Fleckenstein et al., 2007; Volkow et al., 2009). The size of dopaminergic effect⁴ appears to be more aligned with indirect dopamine concentrations⁵ than with drugs that directly increase dopamine levels in the reward system⁶, so the effect of tDCS on dopamine levels appears subtle. No issues with addiction have hitherto been reported in the literature, and the enduring effects of tDCS across multiple sessions appear more disposed towards accumulation of effect than development of tolerance (Alonzo et al., 2012). While the extant evidence does not suggest addictive potential, addiction is a multidimensional occurrence that cannot be predicted by any single neurological (Sinha, 2011) or psychosocial (Nation and Heflinger, 2006) variable, so the possibility of risk cannot be discarded. More research is required in this area; particularly given the significantly increased likelihood towards developing addiction observed in military populations (e.g., Lande et al., 2008; Kelsall et al., 2015).

The fact that techniques like tDCS are described as ‘non-invasive’ may produce the misleading impression that improper administration is less problematic or dangerous than overtly internal forms of enhancement⁷. tDCS has been described in the popular press, and there are several do-it-yourself (DIY) websites describing how to build (poor quality) tDCS apparatuses. All that is needed to build a device at home is a 9v battery, around $40 (US) of electronic parts, and instructions available through forums and dedicated websites (Fitz and Reiner, 2015). DIY brain stimulation is becoming so common that governmental bodies have begun issuing warnings on the dangers of using unapproved devices purchased through the internet (e.g., California Department of Public Health, 2013). It can therefore be expected that military personnel may be interested in self-administration using machines made at home or purchased online. This type of use carries a greater level of risk due to the lack of essential safety features, component redundancy, safe administration guidelines, and expert knowledge of appropriate montage and protocol setup that would be present in professional settings. Anecdotes of serious and permanent side effects have been described in online discussion forums, even including loss of consciousness (Dcminsf, 2014; Packmanta, 2014). Self-administration increases the risk of inappropriate or dangerous montages. For example, in one extreme (but isolated) case, direct current was used to stimulate the brainstem, leading to a number of serious (albeit temporary) adverse effects including disturbed breathing, speech arrest and psychosis (Lippold and Redfearn, 1964). Additionally, self-administration could cause additional risk in military situations where unanticipated or inconsistent effects could have considerable consequences for the capability of warfighters and their ability to properly complete their mission objectives.

Risk Mitigation

It is important to note that with the exception of DIY tDCS, the risks and safety issues discussed in the previous section are underpinned by assumptions about how tDCS is delivered. As well as providing a frame of reference to make these assumptions explicit, this section serves the second purpose of providing guidance on how tDCS guidelines ought to be developed to ensure that tDCS can be delivered safely and efficaciously in military environments. Specifically, this section explores general safety procedures and screening criteria for personnel in which tDCS may be contraindicated.

While tDCS is generally safe, it has been found to cause permanent damage in animal studies when high levels of current were used. There is a risk of causing tissue damage as the electrical stimulation begins to heat brain tissue (Agnew and McCreery, 1987). In a study involving rats, Liebetanz et al. (2009) found that brain lesions formed when current densities exceeded 143 A/m². Studies and treatment involving humans typically use current less than 0.0057 A/m² (2 mA through a 35 cm² pad). While there is some variation in the current limits recommended by key papers on the topic, most recommendations fall within the 1.5–3 mA range. For military operational stimulation, we recommend a current density limit of 2 mA (four orders of magnitude less than the current densities shown to cause lesions in rats). For military research purposes however, a limit of 1.5 mA may be more appropriate to ensure adequate participant blinding (Hummel and Cohen, 2005), since some participants are able to distinguish between active and sham stimulation at intensities at or above 2 mA (O’Connell et al., 2012). Medically certified tDCS devices are fitted with current limiting features, preventing accidental exposure to damaging current levels, and should be the only devices considered for military use. tDCS devices should also undergo regular electrical verification and validation to ensure the equipment is calibrated correctly, and continues to meet safety requirements and specifications.

Several papers within the current body of relevant literature have proposed universal tDCS safety standards and limits. For example, see Nitsche et al. (2003a) or Iyer et al. (2005) for discussion on general safety and limits, and DaSilva et al. (2011)⁸ for direct procedural guidelines on employing standardised tDCS protocol, including materials, measurements, skin preparation, electrode positioning, tDCS administration, and evaluation. There is currently no case for procedural guidelines covering stimulation in military contexts to deviate substantially from general guidelines, so we recommend that any military use of tDCS is consistent with guidelines and recommendations stipulated in the literature cited above.

In some studies, participants experienced temporary mood, personality and behavioural changes following tDCS. Several stimulation montages have been found to modulate relevant neural systems so as to affect a number of key aspects associated with social interaction and empathy, including resonance, self-other discrimination, and mentalisation (Hétu et al., 2012). Additionally, tDCS is known to have other effects on personality and behaviour in areas such as emotion (e.g., emotional aspects associated with pain; Maeoka et al., 2012), honesty (e.g., lying and deception; Priori et al., 2008), mood (e.g., depression/sadness; Ferrucci et al., 2009), comfort with risk (e.g., risk-taking and reward seeking behaviour; Fecteau et al., 2007), and even personal ethics and morality (e.g., judgments on the moral permissibility of attempted harms; Young et al., 2010). Influencing mood, personality and behaviour is not trivial. As put by Hamilton et al. (2011, p. 189), “tDCS can transiently alter an individual’s understanding of and relationship to others in ways that touch directly on the neural basis of ethical and moral thought and behaviour”. While it is worth noting that this type of stimulation could potentially be used beneficially in some circumstances, there are a number of ethical issues that need to be addressed that go beyond the intended scope of this paper. Regardless of ethical considerations, an unanticipated or unpredictable alteration of personality or behaviour represents a tangible threat to capability. Our current recommendation for military-based tDCS research, therefore, is that ongoing mood and personality should be closely monitored and reported, particularly in research areas involving novel and underreported electrode montages.

Another important factor to ensure safe delivery of tDCS concerns the personnel that are selected. tDCS affects participants with particular psychological, mood, and physiological conditions differently to healthy participants (Poreisz et al., 2007). Stringent exclusion criteria therefore need to be set out in military guidelines, covering both research and operational tDCS applications. Recommendations on exclusion criteria differ across key papers, and there is some variation on which criteria should be included. In the context of warfighting, the consequences of unpredictable or adverse outcomes go beyond the general human research principle of avoiding unnecessary distress and injury. In circumstances where adverse effects could prevent personnel from being able to perform their role to their full ability, the capability of the individual or unit may be at risk. In cases where contradictory recommendations exist, the more conservative approach should therefore generally be adopted.

Personnel should be excluded from tDCS if they have suffered from any skin diseases, have metallic implants near the electrodes, or suffer from any unstable medical condition or illness that could increase the risks of stimulation (Nitsche et al., 2003a). This includes (but is not limited to) neurological diseases, chronic eczema, and signs of epilepsy. Personnel taking medication known to affect the central nervous system should also be excluded, including narcoleptic and antiepileptic drugs, antidepressants, benzodiazepines and L-Dopa (Utz et al., 2010)⁹. Pregnancy is not a strict contraindication in tDCS research (DaSilva et al., 2011); however, we suggest that women who are pregnant or suspect they may be pregnant should be excluded as a matter of precaution. Participants with latent psychiatric illness (indicated by first degree relatives suffering from a psychotic disorder) should also be excluded (Meiron and Lavidor, 2013).

While there is nothing unique to military situations which require different safety guidelines to those used in therapeutic stimulation or cognitive enhancement of civilian populations, a different focus is required during screening processes. Conditions that are more prevalent in military personnel, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (Armenta et al., 2018), a history of addiction (Kelsall et al., 2015), or having metal implanted in the body (e.g., shrapnel; Gawande, 2004), should explicitly be stated and screened for. It should be noted that particular mental disorders are more prevalent in military personnel than in the wider civilian population. For example, a recent study found that 22% of Australian Defence Force members met ICD-10 (Tenth Revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems; World Health Organization, 1992) criteria for diagnosis of a mental health disorder at some point within the preceding 12 months period (van Hooff et al., 2014). Additionally, there is evidence that military personnel often do not disclose mental health issues due to perceptions of stigmatisation and career damage (e.g., Rüsch et al., 2017), so additional practical steps may be required in the military screening process. This would likely need to include a mechanism for impartial participant selection, such as encouraging potential stimulation recipients to consult with non-defence affiliated general practitioners, and acting on their eligibility recommendations without requiring justification or explanation (similar to some civilian pre-employment medical assessment procedures).

Finally, the risk of self-administration by defence personnel could be reduced through proactivity on the part of defence organisations. If tDCS were to be an area of active inquiry, military personnel could be involved in formal research rather than self-experimentation. If military research ultimately demonstrates that tDCS enhancement is worthwhile, the technology could then be implemented and administered safely, effectively, and ethically. If, however, it is concluded that the risks are too high and/or the benefits too variable, the informed position specific to military use will likely reduce (if not end) the temptation for private use by personnel. Either way, it would be beneficial for military organisations to have a concrete position on tDCS based on military-specific research.

Future Prospects

A number of significant gaps remain in the tDCS body of literature in areas relevant to military use. Despite the considerable volume of literature indicating the potential of tDCS to enhance performance in areas relevant to military organisations, the case for its utility is somewhat diminished by the fact that it is currently unclear how much of the literature can be generalised into military situations. For tDCS to be truly beneficial, more research needs to be conducted investigating the applied aspects of using tDCS in military environments. This can be broken down into five main areas; inter-individual differences, the generalisability of research involving general populations to military personnel, whether the effects sizes of tDCS are large enough to make any practical difference to military capability and mission outcomes, the generalisability of laboratory based research into operational environments, and how tDCS could fit into established military personnel enhancement programmes.

The effects of tDCS are subject to a high amount of inter-individual variability, so stimulation of identical brain regions (via presumed locations under the skull bone) can cause different effects for different people or in different situations. While some authors have noted the requirement of relatively predictable and repeatable outcomes for the majority of stimulated individuals to justify tDCS as a treatment device in clinical settings (e.g., de Berker et al., 2013; Wiethoff et al., 2014), this requirement is arguably even more important in the military. Given that military situations often have life or death consequences, mean (average) group-level improvements are insufficient where the performance of some warfighters is reduced. Aside from the ethical responsibility to ensure that warfighters are not impeded during high risk situations, the overall effectiveness of the military team could also be diminished where a capability reduction of a single member encumbers the rest of the team. There is, therefore, a strong argument that the ideal goal should be for everyone’s performance to increase, with a minimum requirement that no one goes backward. Consequently, military tDCS use should be tailored to individual personnel.

Individually tailored stimulation is likely to be very difficult to implement. The effects of stimulation are affected by many factors and there is currently no standard process for calculating the likely response to stimulation to optimise target effects for any specific individual. The benefits of stimulation are not uniform across any given montage/protocol, with outcomes dependent on complex interactions between stimulation configurations and inter-individual differences in anatomical and cognitive characteristics (Sarkar et al., 2014). A non-exhaustive list of factors that can influence the effects of tDCS on any given individual is presented in Table 4.

As well as having a large number of variables to consider, the difficulty of predicting an individual’s response is further amplified by the fact that many of the variables interact in complex ways. The majority of relationships between factors and the enhancement (or diminution) effects are neither linear nor monotonic (Laakso et al., 2015). For example, even the basic notion that activity tends to increase under the anodal electrode and decrease (or remain stable) under the cathodal electrode depends on the targeted brain region (Jacobson et al., 2012). Additionally, the effects can sometimes be completely reversed by factors like current strength (Batsikadze et al., 2013), gender (Meiron and Lavidor, 2013), or by complex interactions between variables (e.g., polarity × current strength × baseline task performance level; Benwell et al., 2015).

We therefore argue that delivering stimulation to individual military personnel based on evidence of group-level effects may be inappropriate, and any stimulation programme would be better delivered in a way that ensures efficacy. However, factoring in such a large number of complex interacting variables for each individual is incredibly problematic, and there is a strong likelihood that there are other influencing variables that have yet to be realised given that very little research has been conducted on the variability of effects. One potential approach is to simply perform tDCS on participants during an assessment session, and then divide participants into groups based on their level of activation (e.g., Wiethoff et al., 2014; López-Alonso et al., 2015). Generally, around three quarters of participants who are identified as responding positively in an initial session are likely to respond likewise in a later session. For example, López-Alonso et al. (2015) found that of the 60% of participants identified as responders in an initial session, 78% responded correspondingly in the second stimulation session. Although the authors concluded that cortical excitability responses in an initial session can reliably predict the responses of 69%¹⁰ of participants in a subsequent session (López-Alonso et al., 2015), this kind of strategy is not sufficient to predict the effects of tDCS for all personnel in all situations. Response patterns to tDCS are not represented bimodally (Fujiyama et al., 2014), so a more nuanced method than dichotomous splitting is required.

Other researchers have adopted more neurological focused approaches, using neuroimaging and modelling techniques to predict current flow based on individuals’ unique physiology/anatomy. These techniques include magnetoencephalography (Garcia-Cossio et al., 2016), electroencephalography (Schestatsky et al., 2013), functional magnetic resonance imaging based neuronavigation (Looi and Kadosh, 2015), surface-based registration¹¹ processing of electric fields (Laakso et al., 2015), human head simulations (Datta et al., 2011), and dynamic causal modelling¹² of neural network activity (de Berker et al., 2013). While this research has demonstrated that neuroimaging based simulations can successfully be used to better understand individual differences and optimise tDCS montages for individual participants based on brain current flow predications, practical utilisation of such techniques appear to be prohibitively difficult and time consuming (Davis et al., 2013). Many of the mechanisms involved in the effects of tDCS on brain excitability remain inadequately understood or disputed. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the mode of action of tDCS and determine the best paradigm of stimulation depending on the goals (Roche et al., 2015). Predicting the effects of tDCS can therefore only be so accurate before the physiological mechanisms producing the enhancements are adequately understood. Therefore, this is an area where more research is required, both in terms of specific tDCS neuroimaging research, and fundamental research towards developing a more comprehensive neurophysiological understanding.

Another required area of investigation is to establish the validity of the known effects of tDCS in the military context. Although the question of the real-world applicability of research conducted in artificial laboratory environments is by no means unique to tDCS or the military, the issue is more pronounced in military environments where warfighters experience extreme conditions such as stress, fatigue, and neurophysiological effects associated with exposure to danger (Canli et al., 2007). This is important because the effects of tDCS can be directly influenced by the state of brain activation at the time of stimulation (Canli et al., 2007; Levasseur-Moreau et al., 2013). For the general body of tDCS literature to be relevant to the military, the effects of tDCS need to be tested under conditions closely mimicking real-world military situations so the impact of external variables (such as stressful and high fatigue situations) can be better understood. It is strongly possible that a set of military tasking can be identified in which tDCS should not be used because of the likelihood of negative unintended consequences. In particular, it is the view of the current authors that the use of tDCS in situations likely to trigger strong emotional responses (such as those involving deadly force) is inappropriate until more is known about the interactions between environmental stressors, individual differences, and the effects of stimulation.

Another issue that needs to be considered is whether enhancement effects are large enough to have any meaningful impact (Levasseur-Moreau et al., 2013). This problem is not unique to tDCS research, as the suitability of emphasising statistical significance over effect sizes has been questioned for some time (e.g., Carver, 1978). However, it is particularly relevant in the context of examining technology with inherent risks. tDCS research has typically focused on general population enhancement and clinical population rehabilitation, and few studies directly address whether the effect sizes are large enough to be valuable for military purposes. However, there is some evidence suggesting that particular areas of interest can indeed be affected by tDCS in a meaningful way. Consider the following example from Levasseur-Moreau et al. (2013, p. 8):

“Pascual-Leone et al. (2012) estimated a mean reduction of 32 ms from studies using NIBS [non-invasive brain stimulation] to improve motor RT [reaction times]. In the specific context of speed shooting performances, ∼13 ms would be the difference between elite and rookie police officers (Vickers and Lewinski, 2012). Therefore, an improvement of 32 ms may make a vital difference in the context of a one-on-one gunfight or during aircraft combat (dogfight).”

However, it remains unclear what effect pre-existing skill level has on the level of benefit gained through tDCS. Given that other forms of enhancement (such as training) are subject to diminishing returns in levels of improvement, it is likely that a similar tapering is present in tDCS enhancement. Members of elite level Special Forces units, for example, may not experience the same level of improvement in their already highly refined skill set. Further research is required to confirm the model of diminishing gains, and determine the situations in which the enhancement effects of tDCS are large enough to have practical significance outweighing potential costs and risks.

Finally, it is worth noting that many of the effects elicited by tDCS can be achieved through other enhancement strategies, such as cognitive training (e.g., Biggs et al., 2015), fitness interventions (e.g., Hillman et al., 2008), meditation (e.g., Lutz et al., 2008), mindfulness training (e.g., Zeidan et al., 2010), nutrition (e.g., Burkhalter and Hillman, 2011), and video game training (e.g., Green and Bavelier, 2003). Many of these methods are already being utilised in existing military training programmes and interventions (e.g., Burton et al., 2011; Mead, 2013; Aidman, 2017). For tDCS to be valuable in the context of military enhancement, it must produce positive effects that are superior, additive, multiplicative, or associated with less adverse events than existing enhancement methods. Given that the mechanism of tDCS appears to alter resting membrane potential rather than directly producing action potentials, tDCS may be more beneficial in the complementation of existing methods rather than their replacement. While very little specific research has been conducted in this area, there is some evidence that tDCS can produce better outcomes than certain types of training (e.g., motor training; Pan et al., 2017), and that tDCS can increase the efficacy of cognitive training programmes in areas like dieting self-discipline (Forcano et al., 2018). Additional research establishing the interaction effects between tDCS and current military enhancement interventions is required before the efficacious delivery of tDCS can be ensured.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to examine whether military tDCS use can be efficacious and ethical in military settings. Our assessment is that tDCS offers a number of cognitive, motor, and perceptual enhancement opportunities which could provide value in military situations like training and operations. There is potential scope for use in a number of key areas that directly affect practical battlefield advantage and survivability, such as deceptive capabilities, risk-taking, threat detection, perception, and physiological improvement. Additionally, tDCS has the potential to improve command and control decision making by enhancing aspects of cognition, such as planning, problem solving, memory, and probabilistic assessment.

As well as benefits, tDCS poses a number of risks that need to be considered, and in some cases addressed by military organisations. Overall, it is the opinion of the current authors that the safety concerns are manageable, and the risks moderate. The technique has been tested on thousands of subjects, with most studies reporting only temporary minor adverse effects such as itching, tingling, and headaches. The most severe adverse consequence of tDCS reported to date was abrasions at the locations of the electrodes (which can be mitigated through the application of saline soaked sponges enclosing conductive rubber electrodes). The intensity and rate of occurrence of adverse events are so low that some effects (such as headaches) are reported in similar rates between sham and active stimulation. Assuming that the equipment used can reliably deliver the current evenly and steadily (i.e., using medically certified equipment), the device is well-maintained, appropriate safety guidelines specific to the military are in place, and systematic screening is conducted to ensure that stimulation is performed only on suitable personnel, the risk of experiencing adverse effects appears to be no greater in military populations than in general populations.

Given the potential of tDCS to increase warfighter capabilities in support of command and control on a temporary, at needs basis, we submit that the potential benefits of tDCS have the potential to outweigh the limited and mitigable risks. In situations where tDCS can be used for the purpose of completing military objectives safely and where a marginal increase in performance can mean the difference between life and death, consequentialist arguments in support of military tDCS enhancement are compelling. However, this assumes that specific desired effects can be reliably delivered to individual warfighters. The effects are neither normally distributed nor even multimodally distributed, so there is a requirement to go beyond group-level findings that fail to account for the large number of inter-individual and environmental variables that affect the outcomes of stimulation.

Despite the potential of military tDCS application, there are a number of other open questions that need to be addressed before efficacious and ethical military stimulation is possible. It is unclear how applicable the current body of literature is in areas of military application. Research needs to be conducted investigating how specific effects of tDCS can be generalised across civilian and military populations given environmental factors and individual differences. While efficacious stimulation appears feasible, more research is required before tDCS can have a practical and substantial impact on capability and mission outcomes in the context of the current military training and enhancement landscape. As well as these empirical issues, a number of ethical questions require attention. It was not the purpose of this paper to take normative ethical stances beyond any apparent utilitarian conclusions that emerge from discussion of benefits and risk. Consequently, other ethical questions like the moral responsibility of warfighters’ actions while experiencing the effects of tDCS, and how traditional bioethical principles (such as respect for persons and justice) can be maintained, need to be considered separately.

As DIY tDCS becomes increasingly inexpensive and popular, the risk of military personnel experimenting with potentially dangerous devices or inadvertently using counterproductive montages increases. Given the pressing risks associated with self-administration, it would be preferable for military organisations to play a proactive role in addressing the remaining empirical and philosophical questions. If a military-based research programme were to conclude that tDCS is unable to provide genuine warfighting advantage, the temptation for riskier informal use by military personnel would be reduced (if not ended). If, however, the remaining issues (such as inter-individual variation) are adequately resolved, tDCS could then be administered in a controlled way that ensures safe, ethical, reliable, and efficacious delivery.

Overall, tDCS is a safe technique which may have potential for military application. Prospective benefits outweigh the safety risks when tDCS is conducted within established limits, and ethical concerns can be addressed through planning and policy. tDCS is acceptably safe when used in controlled conditions, and while additional research is required in a number of areas, tDCS has the potential to be valuable to military organisations once these issues are addressed and appropriate guidelines are enacted. While it is the view of the current authors that the state of the literature has yet to reach the point where ethical and efficacious delivery is possible in military settings, tDCS is presently fertile ground for military specific research.

References

• 1

  AfshinA.ForouzanfarM. H.ReitsmaM. B.SurP.EstepK.LeeA.et al (2017). Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years.N. Engl. J. Med.37713–27. 10.1056/NEJMoa1614362

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AgnewW. F.McCreeryD. B. (1987). Considerations for safety in the use of extracranial stimulation for motor evoked potentials.Neurosurgery20143–147. 10.1097/00006123-198701000-00030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AidmanE. (2017). The cognitive fitness framework: a roadmap for systematic, evidence-based mental skills training and performance enhancement.J. Sci. Med. Sport20(Suppl. 2):S50. 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AllenC. D.GerrasS. J. (2009). Developing creative and critical thinkers.Mil. Rev.8977–83.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AlonzoA.BrassilJ.TaylorJ. L.MartinD.LooC. K. (2012). Daily transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) leads to greater increases in cortical excitability than second daily transcranial direct current stimulation.Brain Stimul.5208–213. 10.1016/j.brs.2011.04.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AndersonJ. R. (2005). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications.New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AndrewsS. C.HoyK. E.EnticottP. G.DaskalakisZ. J.FitzgeraldP. B. (2011). Improving working memory: the effect of combining cognitive activity and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Brain Stimul.484–89. 10.1016/j.brs.2010.06.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AntalA.TerneyD.PoreiszC.PaulusW. (2007). Towards unravelling task-related modulations of neuroplastic changes induced in the human motor cortex.Eur. J. Neurosci.262687–2691. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05896.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AntonenkoD.NierhausT.MeinzerM.PrehnK.ThielscherA.IttermannB.et al (2018). Age-dependent effects of brain stimulation on network centrality.Brain Stimul.17671–82. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.038

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ArmentaR. F.RushT.LeardMannC. A.MilleganJ.CooperA.HogeC. W.et al (2018). Factors associated with persistent posttraumatic stress disorder among U.S. military service members and veterans.BMC Psychiatry18:48. 10.1186/s12888-018-1590-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AslaksenP. M.VasylenkoO.FagerlundA. J. (2014). The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimentally induced heat pain.Exp. Brain Res.2321865–1873. 10.1007/s00221-014-3878-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Australian Army (2017). Land Warfare Doctrine 1: The Fundamentals of Land Power.Canberra: Australian Department of Defence.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Australian Army (2018). Land Warfare Doctrine 1-0: Personnel.Canberra: Australian Department of Defence.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BatsikadzeG.MoliadzeV.PaulusW.KuoM. F.NitscheM. A. (2013). Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans.J. Physiol.5911987–2000. 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.249730

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BeauchampM. S.BeurlotM. R.FavaE.NathA. R.ParikhN. A. (2011). The developmental trajectory of brain-scalp distance from birth through childhood: implications for functional neuroimaging.PLoS One6:e24981. 10.1371/journal.pone.0024981

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BeenG.NgoT. T.MillerS. M.FitzgeraldP. D. (2007). The use of tDCS and CVS as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation.Brain Res. Rev.56346–361. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.08.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BenwellC. S. Y.LearmonthG.MiniussiC.HarveyM.ThutG. (2015). Non-linear effects of transcranial direct current stimulation as a function of individual baseline performance: evidence from biparietal tDCS influence on lateralized attention bias.Cortex69152–165. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BerryhillM. E.JonesK. T. (2012). tDCS selectively improves working memory in older adults with more education.Neurosci. Lett.521148–151. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.05.074

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  BerryhillM. E.WencilE. B.CoslettH. B.OlsonaI. R. (2010). A selective working memory impairment after transcranial direct current stimulation to the right parietal lobe.Neurosci. Lett.479312–316. 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.05.087

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BiggsA. T.CainM. S.MitroffS. R. (2015). Cognitive training can reduce civilian casualties in a simulated shooting environment.Psychol. Sci.261164–1176.10.1177/0956797615579274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BiksonM.DattaA.RahmanA.ScaturroJ. (2010). Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: role of “return” electrode’s position and size.Clin. Neurophysiol.1211976–1978. 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.05.020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BinneyR. J.AshaieS. A.ZuckermanB. M.HungJ.ReillyJ. (2018). Frontotemporal stimulation modulates semantically-guided visual search during confrontation naming: a combined tDCS and eye tracking investigation.Brain Lang.1814–23. 10.1016/j.bandl.2018.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BoggioP. S.FregnF.ValasekC.EllwoodS.ChiR.GallateJ.et al (2009). Temporal lobe cortical electrical stimulation during the encoding and retrieval phase reduces false memories.PLoS One4:e4959. 10.1371/journal.pone.0004959

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BremA.-K.FriedP. J.HorvathJ. C.RobertsonaE. M.Pascual-LeoneA. (2014). Is neuroenhancement by noninvasive brain stimulation a net zero-sum proposition?Neuroimage851058–1068. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.038

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  British Army (1981). Basic Battle Skills (Army Code 71090).London: HMSO.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BrunoniA. R.AmaderaJ.BerbelB.VolzM. S.RizzerioB. G.FregnF. (2011). A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation.Neuropsychopharmacology141133–1145. 10.1017/S1461145710001690

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BuchananA. (2008). Enhancement and the ethics of development.Kennedy Inst. Ethics J.181–34. 10.1353/ken.0.0003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BurkhalterT. M.HillmanC. H. (2011). A narrative review of physical activity, nutrition, and obesity to cognition and scholastic performance across the human lifespan.Adv. Nutr.2201S–206S. 10.3945/an.111.000331

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BurtonP. S.NanceJ. H.WaltonD. C. (2011). Lethal Weapon: DRSE builds SOF’s greatest weapon - the minds of its soldiers.Spec. Warf.2410–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  California Department of Public Health (2013). CDPH Warns Consumers Not to Use TDCS Home Device Kit.Available at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR13-029.aspx

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  CanliT.BrandonS.CasebeerW.CrowleyP. J.DuRousseauD.GreelyH. T.et al (2007). Neuroethics and national security.Am. J. Bioeth.73–13. 10.1080/15265160701290249

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  CannonM. (1988). Task Force Smith: a study in (un)preparedness and (ir)responsibility.Mil. Rev.6863–73.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  CarrettaT. R.PerryD. C. J.ReeM. J. (1996). Prediction of situational awareness in F-15 pilots.Int. J. Aviat. Psychol.621–41. 10.1207/s15327108ijap0601_2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  CarverR. P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing.Harv. Educ. Rev.48378–399. 10.17763/haer.48.3.t490261645281841

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CasaliJ. G.TalcottK.KeadyJ. P.KillionM. C. (2011). “Warfighter auditory situation awareness: locating the shooter with and without hearing protection,” inProceedings of the Human Systems Integration Symposium (HSIS 2011) (Alexandria, VA: American Society of Naval Engineers) 45–56.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  ChiR. P.SnyderA. W. (2011). Facilitate insight by non-invasive brain stimulation.PLoS One6:e16655. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016655

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  ClarkV. P.CoffmanB. A.MayerA. R.WeisendM. P.LaneT. D.CalhounV. D.et al (2012). TDCS guided using fMRI significantly accelerates learning to identify concealed objects.Neuroimage59117–128. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  CoffmanB. A.TrumboM. C.FloresR. A.GarciaC. M.van der MerweA. J.WassermannE. M.et al (2012). Impact of tDCS on performance and learning of target detection: interaction with stimulus characteristics and experimental design.Neuropsychologia501594–1602. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CogiamanianF.MarcegliaS.ArdolinoG.BarbieriS.PrioriA. (2007). Improved isometric force endurance after transcranial direct current stimulation over the human motor cortical areas.Eur. J. Neurosci.26242–249. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05633.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  CoolsR. (2011). Dopaminergic control of the striatum for high-level cognition.Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.21402–407. 10.1016/j.conb.2011.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CrabbeR. R. (2000). “The nature of command,” inThe Human in Command: Exploring the Modern Military ExperienceedsPigeauR.McCannC. (Toronto: Springer) 9–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  DackisC. A.GoldM. S. (2008). Addictiveness of central stimulants.Adv. Alcohol Subst. Abuse99–26. 10.1300/J251v09n01_02

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  DaSilvaA. F.VolzM. S.BiksonM.FregniF. (2011). Electrode positioning and montage in transcranial direct current stimulation.J. Vis. Exp.51:2744. 10.3791/2744

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  DattaA.BakerJ. M.BiksonM.FridrikssonJ. (2011). Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient.Brain Stimul.4169–174. 10.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  DattaA.BansalV.DiazJ.PatelJ.ReatoD.BiksonM. (2009). Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad.Brain Stimul.2201–207. 10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  DavisM. C.LueckenL.Lemery-ChalfantK. (2009). Resilience in common life: introduction to the special issue.J. Pers.771637–1644. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00595.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  DavisN. J.GoldE.Pascual-LeoneA.BracewellR. M. (2013). Challenges of proper placebo control for non-invasive brain stimulation in clinical and experimental applications.Eur. J. Neurosci.382973–2977. 10.1111/ejn.12307

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Dcminsf (2014). Avoiding Burns and Scars. [reddit thread].Available at: http://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/comments/1xrjyh/avoiding_burns_and_scars/

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  de BerkerA. O.BiksonM.BestmannS. (2013). Predicting the behavioral impact of transcranial direct current stimulation: issues and limitations.Front. Hum. Neurosci.7:613. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00613

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  de JesusS. N.GonçalvesM. (2012). P-1372 - Modulation of the autonomic nervous system by transcranial direct current stimulation: preliminary results of a pilot study with relevance to resilience to stress science.Eur. Psychiatry27:1. 10.1016/S0924-9338(12)75539-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  de RaedtR.RemueJ.LoeysT.HooleyJ. M.BaekenC. (2017). The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex on implicit self-esteem is mediated by rumination after criticism.Behav. Res. Ther.99138–146. 10.1016/j.brat.2017.10.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Di ChiaraG.ImperatoA. (1988). Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.855274–5278. 10.1073/pnas.85.14.5274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DityeT.JacobsonL.WalshV.LavidorM. (2012). Modulating behavioral inhibition by tDCS combined with cognitive training.Exp. Brain Res.219363–368. 10.1007/s00221-012-3098-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DockeryC. A.Hueckel-WengR.BirbaumerN.PlewniaC. (2009). Enhancement of planning ability by transcranial direct current stimulation.J. Neurosci.297271–7277. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0065-09.2009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  D’UrsoG.Dell’OssoB.RossiR.BrunoniA. R.BortolomasiM.FerrucciR.et al (2017). Clinical predictors of acute response to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in major depression.J. Affect. Disord.21925–30. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.05.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DymondA. M.CogerR. W.SerafetinidesE. A. (1975). Intracerebral current levels in man during electrosleep therapy.Biol. Psychiatry10101–104.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems.Hum. Factors3732–64. 10.1518/001872095779049543

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  FalconeB.CoffmanA.ClarkV. P.ParasuramanR. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation augments perceptual sensitivity and 24-hour retention in a complex threat detection task.PLoS One7:e34993. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034993

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  FecteauS.KnochD.FregniF.SultaniN.BoggioP.Pascual-LeoneA. (2007). Diminishing risk-taking behaviour by modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex: a direct current stimulation study.Neuroscience2712500–12505.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3283-07.2007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  FerrucciR.BortolomasiM.VergariM.TadiniL.SalvoroB.GiacopuzziM.et al (2009). Transcranial direct current stimulation in severe, drug-resistant major depression.J. Affect. Disord.118215–219. 10.1016/j.jad.2009.02.015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  FischerD. B.FriedP. J.RuffiniG.RipollesO.SalvadorR.BanusJ.et al (2017). Multifocal tDCS targeting the resting state motor network increases cortical excitability beyond traditional tDCS targeting unilateral motor cortex.Neuroimage15734–44. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.060

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  FischlB.SerenoM. I.TootellR. B.DaleA. M. (1999). High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface.Hum. Brain Mapp.8272–284. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)8:4<272::AID-HBM10>3.0.CO;2-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FitzN. S.ReinerP. B. (2015). The challenge of crafting policy for do-it-yourself brain stimulation.J. Med. Ethics41410–412. 10.1136/medethics-2013-101458

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  FleckensteinA. E.VolzT. J.RiddleE. L.GibbJ. W.HansonG. R. (2007). New insights into the mechanism of action of amphetamines.Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol.47681–698. 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105140

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  FlöelA.RösserN.MichkaO.KnechtS.BreitensteinC. (2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning.J. Cogn. Neurosci.201415–1422. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  FlöelA.SuttorpW.KohlO.KürtenJ.LohmannH.BreitensteinC.et al (2012). Non-invasive brain stimulation improves object-location learning in the elderly.Neurobiol. Aging331682–1689. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.05.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  FonteneauC.RedouteJ.HaesebaertF.Le BarsD.CostesN.Suaud-ChagnyM.-F.et al (2018). Frontal transcranial direct current stimulation induces dopamine release in the ventral striatum in human.Cereb. Cortex282636–2646. 10.1093/cercor/bhy093

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ForcanoL.de la TorreR.MataF.Verdejo-GarciaA. (2018). Cognitive and neuromodulation strategies for unhealthy eating and obesity: systematic review and discussion of neurocognitive mechanisms.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.87161–191. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.02.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  FoxD. (2011). Brain buzz.Nature472156–158. 10.1038/472156a

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  FrankE.WilfurthS.LandgrebeM.EichhammerP.HajakG.LangguthB. (2010). Anodal skin lesions after treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation.Brain Stimul.358–59. 10.1016/j.brs.2009.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  FristonK. J.HarrisonL.PennyW. (2003). Dynamic causal modelling.Neuroimage191273–1302. 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00202-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  FujiyamaH.HinderM. R.BarzidehA.de VijverC. V.BadacheA. C.Manrique-CM. N.et al (2017). Preconditioning tDCS facilitates subsequent tDCS effect on skill acquisition in older adults.Neurobiol. Aging5131–42. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.11.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  FujiyamaH.HydeJ.HinderM. R.KimS. J.McCormackG. H.VickersJ. C.et al (2014). Delayed plastic responses to anodal tDCS in older adults.Front. Aging Neurosci.6:115. 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Garcia-CossioE.WitkowskiM.RobinsonS. E.CohenL. G.BirbaumerN.SoekadarS. R. (2016). Simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG): assessing the impact of tDCS on slow cortical magnetic fields.Neuroimage14033–40. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.068

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  GarintherG. R.PetersL. J. (1990). Impact of communications on armor crew performance: investigating the impact of noise and other variables on mission effectiveness.Army RD&A Bull.11–5.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  GawandeA. (2004). Casualties of war — military care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan.N. Engl. J. Med.3512471–2475. 10.1056/NEJMp048317

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  GilmoreP. W. (2016). Leading a Resilient Force: Insights of an Australian General.Canberra: Australian Department of Defence.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  GiordanoJ.BiksonM.KappenmanE. S.ClarkV. P.CoslettH. B.HamblinM. R.et al (2017). Mechanisms and effects of transcranial direct current stimulation.Dose Response151–22. 10.1177/1559325816685467

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  GladwinT. E.den UylT. E.WiersR. W. (2012). Anodal tDCS of dorsolateral prefontal cortex during an Implicit Association Test.Neurosci. Lett.51782–86. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.04.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  GodwinE. E.KreutzerJ. S. (2013). Embracing a new path to emotional recovery: adopting resilience theory in post-TBI psychotherapy.Brain Inj.27637–639. 10.3109/02699052.2012.750745

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  GoldmanR. L.BorckardtJ. J.FrohmanH. A.O’NeilP. M.MadanA.CampbellL. K.et al (2011). Prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) temporarily reduces food cravings and increases the self-reported ability to resist food in adults with frequent food craving.Apetite56741–746. 10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  GonzalezC.WimisbergJ. (2007). Situation awareness in dynamic decision making: effects of practice and working memory.J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak.156–74. 10.1177/155534340700100103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  GreenC. S.BavelierD. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention.Nature423534–537. 10.1038/nature01647

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  GronlundS. D.DoughertyM. R. P.OhrtD. D.ThomsonG. L.BleckleyM. K.BainD. L.et al (1997). The Role of Memory in Air Traffic Control (DOT/FAA/AM-97/22).Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  GutzwillerR. S.CleggB. A. (2013). The role of working memory in levels of situation awareness.J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak.7141–154. 10.1177/1555343412451749

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HaiR.HeckmanJ. J. (2017). Inequality in human capital and endogenous credit constraints.Rev. Econ. Dyn.254–36. 10.1016/j.red.2017.01.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HamiltonR. H.MessingS.ChatterjeeA. (2011). Rethinking the thinking cap: ethics of neural enhancement using noninvasive brain stimulation.Neurology76187–193. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318205d50d

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HampsteadB. M.BrownG. S.HartleyJ. F. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates activation and effective connectivity during spatial navigation.Brain Stimul.7314–324. 10.1016/j.brs.2013.12.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  HartelC. E.SmithK.PrinceC. (1991). “Defining aircrew coordination: searching mishaps for meaning,” inProceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychologyed.JensenR. S. (Columbus: Ohio State University Dept. of Aviation).

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  HattoriS.NaoiM.NishinoH. (1994). Striatal dopamine turnover during treadmill running in the rat: relation to the speed of running.Brain Res. Bull.3541–49. 10.1016/0361-9230(94)90214-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  HechtD.WalshV.LavidorM. (2010). Transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates decision making in a probabilistic guessing task.J. Neurosci.304241–4245. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2924-09.2010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  HeinzA.KipkeR.HeimannH.WiesingU. (2012). Cognitive neuroenhancement: false assumptions in the ethical debate.J. Med. Ethics38372–375. 10.1136/medethics-2011-100041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  HeinzeK.RuhN.NitschkeK.ReisJ.FritschB.UnterrainerJ. M.et al (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation over left and right DLPFC: lateralized effects on planning performance and related eye movements.Biol. Psychol.102130–140. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.07.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  HeiseK. F.NiehoffM.FeldheimJ. F.LiuzziG.GerloffC.HummelF. C. (2014). Differential behavioral and physiological effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy adults of younger and older age.Front. Aging Neurosci.6:146. 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00146

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  HétuS.Taschereau-DumouchelV.JacksonP. L. (2012). Stimulating the brain to study social interactions and empathy.Brain Stimul.595–102. 10.1016/j.brs.2012.03.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  HicksC. S. (1972). Who Called the Cook a Bastard?Sydney: Keyline.

  • Google Scholar

• 97

  HilgetagC. C.ThéoretH.Pascual-LeoneA. (2001). Enhanced visual spatial attention ipsilateral to rTMS-induced ’virtual lesions’ of human parietal cortex.Nat. Neurosci.4953–957. 10.1038/nn0901-953

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  HillmanC. H.EricksonK. I.KramerA. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.959–65. 10.1038/nrn2298

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  HoK.-A.TaylorJ. L.ChewT.GálvezV.AlonzoA.BaiS.et al (2016). The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) electrode size and current intensity on motor cortical excitability: evidence from single and repeated sessions.Brain Stimul.91–7. 10.1016/j.brs.2015.08.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  HolgadoD.VadilloM. A.SanabriaD. (2019). The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on objective and subjective indexes of exercise performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain Stimul.12242–250. 10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  HummelF. C.CohenL. G. (2005). Improvement of motor function with noninvasive cortical stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke.Neurorehab. Neural Repair1914–19. 10.1177/1545968304272698

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  IyerM. B.MattuU.GrafmanJ.LomarevM.SatoS.WassermannE. M. (2005). Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals.Neurology64872–875. 10.1212/01.WNL.0000152986.07469.E9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  JacobsonL.JavittD. C.LavidorM. (2011). Activation of inhibition: diminishing impulsive behavior by direct current stimulation over the inferior frontal gyrus.J. Cogn. Neurosci.233380–3387. 10.1162/jocn_a_00020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  JacobsonL.KoslowskyM.LavidorM. (2012). tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review.Exp. Brain Res.2161–10. 10.1007/s00221-011-2891-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  JavadiA. H.ChengP. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) enhances reconsolidation of long-term memory.Brain Stimul.6668–674. 10.1016/j.brs.2012.10.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  Joint Chiefs of Staff (2012). Joint Publication 3-13.4: Military Deception.Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense.

  • Google Scholar

• 107

  KarimA. A.SchneiderM.LotzeM.VeitR.SausengP.BraunC.et al (2010). The truth about lying: Inhibition of the anterior prefrontal cortex improves deceptive behavior.Cereb. Cortex20205–213. 10.1093/cercor/bhp090

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  KelsallH. L.WijesingheM. S. D.CreamerM. C.McKenzieD. P.ForbesA. B.PageM. J.et al (2015). Alcohol use and substance use disorders in Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq War veterans compared with nondeployed military personnel.Epidemiol. Rev.3738–54. 10.1093/epirev/mxu014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KesslerS. K.TurkeltaubP. E.BensonJ. G.HamiltonR. H. (2012). Differences in the experience of active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation.Brain Stimul.5155–162. 10.1016/j.brs.2011.02.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  KleiderH. M.ParrottD. J.KingT. Z. (2009). Shooting behaviour: how working memory and negative emotionality influence police officer shoot decisions.Appl. Cogn. Psychol.24707–717. 10.1002/acp.1580

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  KlemG. H.LudersH. O.JasperH. H.ElgerC. (1999). The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation.Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. Suppl.523–6.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  KraftA.RoehmelJ.OlmaM. C.SchmidtS.IrlbacherK.BrandtS. A. (2010). Transcranial direct current stimulation affects visual perception measured by threshold perimetry.Exp. Brain Res.207283–290. 10.1007/s00221-010-2453-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  LaaksoI.TanakaS.KoyamaS.De SantisV.HirataA. (2015). Inter-subject variability in electric fields of motor cortical tDCS.Brain Stimul.8906–913. 10.1016/j.brs.2015.05.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LambertD. A.ScholzJ. B. (2007). Ubiquitous command and control.Intell. Decis. Technol.1157–173. 10.3233/IDT-2007-1305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LandeR. G.MarinB. A.ChangA. S.LandeG. R. (2008). Survey of alcohol use in the U.S. Army.J. Addict. Dis.27115–121. 10.1080/10550880802122711

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  LearmonthG.ThutG.BenwellC. S. Y.HarveyM. (2015). The implications of state-dependent tDCS effects in aging: Behavioural response is determined by baseline performance.Neuropsychologia74108–119. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.037

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  Levasseur-MoreauJ.BrunelinJ.FecteauS. (2013). Non-invasive brain stimulation can induce paradoxical facilitation. Are these neuroenhancements transferable and meaningful to security services?Front. Hum. Neurosci.7:449. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00449

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  LiL. M.UeharaK.HanakawaT. (2015). The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies.Front. Cell. Neurosci.9:181. 10.3389/fncel.2015.00181

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LiebermanH. R.BathalonG. P.FalcoC. M.IIIMorganC. A.NiroP. J.TharionW. J. (2005). The fog of war: decrements in cognitive performance and mood associated with combat-like stress.Aviat. Space Environ. Med.76(7 Suppl.)C7–C14.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LiebetanzD.KochR.MayenfelsS.KönigF.PaulusW.NitscheM. A. (2009). Safety limits of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in rats.Clin. Neurophysiol.1201161–1167. 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.01.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LinC. H. J.KnowltonB. J.ChiangM. C.IacoboniM.UdompholkulP.WuA. D. (2011). Brain-behavior correlates of optimizing learning through interleaved practice.Neuroimage561758–1772. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.066

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  LippoldO. C. J.RedfearnJ. W. T. (1964). Mental changed resulting from the passage of small direct currents through the human brain.Br. J. Psychol.110768–972. 10.1192/bjp.110.469.768

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LoftusA. M.NichollsM. E. R. (2012). Testing the activation–orientation account of spatial attentional asymmetries using transcranial direct current stimulation.Neuropsychologia502573–2576. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.07.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LooiC. Y.KadoshR. C. (2015). “The use of transcranial direct current stimulation for cognitive enhancement,” inCognitive Enhancement: Pharmacologic, Environmental and Genetic FactorsedsKnafoS.VeneroC. (Amsterdam: Elsevier) 307–341.

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  López-AlonsoV.Fernández-Del-OlmoM.CostantiniA.González-HenríquezJ. J.CheeranB. J. (2015). Intra-individual variability in the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation.Clin. Neurophysiol.1262342–2347.10.1016/j.clinph.2015.03.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  LupyanG.MirmanD.HamiltonR. H.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2012). Categorization is modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation over left prefrontal cortex.Cognition12436–49. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  LutzA.SlagterH. A.DunneJ. D.DavidsonR. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation.Trends Cogn. Sci.12163–169. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MachadoD. G. D. S.UnalG.AndradeS. M.MoreiraA.AltimariL. R.BrunoniA. R.et al (2018). Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on exercise performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain Stimul.10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.227[Epub ahead of print].

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MaeokaH.MatsuoA.HiyamizuM.MoriokaS.AndoH. (2012). Influence of transcranial direct current stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on pain related emotions: a study using electroencephalographic power spectrum analysis.Neurosci. Lett.51212–16. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.037

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MarshallL.MölleM.HallschmidM.BornJ. (2004). Transcranial direct current stimulation during sleep improves declarative memory.J. Neurosci.249985–9992. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2725-04.2004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  McIntireL. K.McKinleyR. A.NelsonJ. M.GoodyearC. (2017a). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) interferes with cognitive bias mitigation learning.Brain Stimul.10:354. 10.1016/j.brs.2017.01.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  McIntireL. K.McKinleyR. A.NelsonJ. M.GoodyearC. (2017b). Transcranial direct current stimulation versus caffeine as a fatigue countermeasure.Brain Stimul.101070–1078. 10.1016/j.brs.2017.08.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  McKinleyR. A.BridgesN.WaltersC. M.NelsonJ. M. (2012). Modulating the brain at work using noninvasive transcranial stimulation.Neuroimage59129–137. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.075

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  McKinleyR. A.McIntireL. K.WeisendM. P. (2013). Acceleration of image analyst training with transcranial direct current stimulation.Behav. Neurosci.127936–946. 10.1037/a0034975

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  MeadC. (2013). War Play: Video Games and the Future of Armed Conflict.Boston, MA: Eamon Dolan.

  • Google Scholar

• 136

  MeironO.LavidorM. (2013). Unilateral prefrontal direct current stimulation effects are modulated by working memory load and gender.Brain Stimul.6433–439. 10.1016/j.brs.2012.05.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MoliadzeV.AntalA.PaulusW. (2010). Electrode-distance dependent after-effects of transcranial direct and random noise stimulation with extracephalic reference electrodes.Clin. Neurophysiol.1212165–2171. 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  Monte-SilvaK.KuoM. F.LiebetanzD.PaulusW.NitscheM. A. (2010). Shaping the optimal repetition interval for cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).J. Neurophysiol.1031735–1740. 10.1152/jn.00924.2009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  MurphyP. J. (2002). Fatigue Management During Operations: A Commander’s Guide.Puckapunyal: Land Warfare Development Centre.

  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MurrayS. A.EnsignW.YanagiM.Ssc Pacific. (2010). Combat Situation Awareness (CSA) Model-Based Characterizations of Marine Corps Training and Operations (TR-1994).Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research. 10.21236/ADA535225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  NationM.HeflingerC. A. (2006). Risk factors for serious alcohol and drug use: the role of psychosocial variables in predicting the frequency of substance use among adolescents.Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse32415–433. 10.1080/00952990600753867

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  NelsonJ. T.McKinleyR. A.GolobE. J.WarmJ. S.ParasuramanR. (2014). Enhancing vigilance in operators with prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).Neuroimage85909–917. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.061

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  NieoullonA. (2002). Dopamine and the regulation of cognition and attention.Prog. Neurobiol.6753–83. 10.1016/S0301-0082(02)00011-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  NitscheM. A.CohenL. G.WassermannE. M.PrioriA.LangN.AntalA.et al (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008.Brain Stimul.1206–223. 10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  NitscheM. A.LiebetanzD.LangN.AntalA.TergauF.PaulusW. (2003a). Safety criteria for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in humans.Clin. Neurophysiol.1142220–2222. 10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00235-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  NitscheM. A.SchauenburgA.LangN.LiebetanzD.ExnerC.PaulusW.et al (2003b). Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human.J. Cogn. Neurosci.15619–626. 10.1162/089892903321662994

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  NoakesT. D. (2011). Time to move beyond a brainless exercise physiology: the evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance.Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab.3623–35. 10.1139/H10-082

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  NoakesT. D. (2012). Fatigue is a brain-derived emotion that regulates the exercise behavior to ensure the protection of whole body homeostasis.Front. Physiol3:82. 10.3389/fphys.2012.00082

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  NuttD. J.Lingford-HughesA.ErritzoeD.StokesP. R. (2015). The dopamine theory of addiction: 40 years of highs and lows.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.16305–312. 10.1038/nrn3939

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  O’ConnellN. E.CossarJ.MarstonL.WandB. M.BunceD.MoseleyG. L.et al (2012). Rethinking clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation: Participant and assessor blinding is inadequate at intensities of 2mA.PLoS One7:e47514. 10.1371/journal.pone.0047514

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Packmanta (2014). First Time Using Foc.us: Saw Bright White Flash, Passed Out Momentarily. Help.Available at: http://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/comments/1y1vlz/first_time_using_focus_saw_bright_white_flash/

  • Google Scholar

• 152

  PaleriP. (2008). National Security: Imperatives and Challenges.New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Google Scholar

• 153

  PalmU.KeeserD.SchillerC.FintescuZ.ReisingerE.NitscheM. A.et al (2008). Skin lesions after treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).Brain Stimul.1386–387. 10.1016/j.brs.2008.04.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  PanL.ZhangD.JiangN.ShengX.ZhuX. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation versus user training on improving online myoelectric control for amputees.J. Neural Eng.14:046019. 10.1088/1741-2552/aa758e

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  PaneriB.AdairD.ThomasC.KhadkaN.PatelV.TylerW. J.et al (2016). Tolerability of repeated application of transcranial electrical stimulation with limited outputs to healthy subjects.Brain Stimul.9740–754. 10.1016/j.brs.2016.05.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  Pascual-LeoneA.HorvathJ. C.RobertsonE. M. (2012). “Enhancement of normal cognitive abilities through noninvasive brain stimulation,” inCortical Connectivity: Brain Stimulation for Assessing and Modulating Cortical Connectivity and FunctionedsChenR.RothwellJ. C. (Berlin: Springer) 207–249.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  PavlovaE.KuoM.-F.NitscheM. M.BorgJ. (2013). P 77. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the premotor cortex aimed to improve fine motor skills of the hand.Clin. Neurophysiol.124e101–e102. 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  Peña-GómezC.Vidal-PiñeiroD.ClementeI. C.Pascual-LeoneÁBartrés-FazD. (2011). Down-regulation of negative emotional processing by transcranial direct current stimulation: effects of personality characteristics.PLoS One6:e22812. 10.1371/journal.pone.0022812

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  PigeauR.McCannC. (2000). “Redefining command and control,” inThe Human in Command: Exploring the Modern Military ExperienceedsPigeauR.McCannC. (Toronto: Springer) 163–184.

  • Google Scholar

• 160

  PoreiszC.BorosK.AntalA.PaulusW. (2007). Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients.Brain Res. Bull.72208–214. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.01.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  PrioriA.MameliF.CogiamanianF.MarcegliaS.TiriticcoM.Mrakic-SpostaS.et al (2008). Lie-specific involvement of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in deception.Cereb. Cortex18451–455. 10.1093/cercor/bhm088

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  RagertP.VandermeerenY.CamusM.CohenL. G. (2008). Improvement of spatial tactile acuity by transcranial direct current stimulation.Clin. Neurophysiol.119805–811. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.12.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  RedmoreJ. W. (2009). Continuing progress during the “Year of the NCO”.Mil. Rev.8911–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  RibeauxP.PoppletonS. E. (1978). Psychology and Work: An Introduction.London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978-1-349-15983-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  RocheN.GeigerM.BusselB. (2015). Mechanisms underlying transcranial direct current stimulation in rehabilitation.Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med.58214–219. 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.04.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  RossiS.HallettM.RossiniP.Pascual-LeoneA.Safety of Tms Consensus Group. (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.Clin. Neurophysiol.1202008–2039. 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  Royal Australian Air Force (2017). Air Forcer Doctrine Publication 1: The Air Force Approach to Personnel Capability Support.Canberra: Australian Department of Defence.

  • Google Scholar

• 168

  RüschN.RoséC. P.HolzhausenF.MulfingerN.KrummS.CorriganP. W.et al (2017). Attitudes towards disclosing a mental illness among German soldiers and their comrades.Psychiatry Res.258200–206. 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.08.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  SadleirR. J.VannorsdallT. D.SchretlenD. J.GordonB. (2010). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a realistic head model.Neuroimage511310–1318. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.052

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  SalehinejadM. A.NejatiV.DerakhshanM. (2017). Neural correlates of trait resiliency: evidence from electrical stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dLPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC).Pers. Individ. Dif.106209–216.10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SarkarA.DowkerA.KadoshR. C. (2014). Cognitive enhancement or cognitive cost: trait-specific outcomes of brain stimulation in the case of mathematics anxiety.J. Neurosci.3416605–16610. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3129-14.2014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SavulescuJ. (2006). “Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings,” inThe Oxford Handbook on Bioethicsed.SteinbockB. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 516–535.

  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SchestatskyP.Morales-QuezadaL.FregniF. (2013). Simultaneous EEG monitoring during transcranial direct current stimulation.J. Vis. Exp.76:e50426. 10.3791/50426

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SchülkeR.StraubeB. (2017). Modulating the assessment of semantic speech-gesture relatedness via transcranial direct current stimulation of the left frontal cortex.Brain Stimul.10223–230. 10.1016/j.brs.2016.10.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  SinhaR. (2011). New findings on biological factors predicting addiction relapse vulnerability.Curr. Psychiatry Rep.13398–405. 10.1007/s11920-011-0224-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  SmithT. J.MarriottB. P.DotsonL.BathalonG. P.FunderburkL.WhiteA.et al (2012). Overweight and obesity in military personnel: sociodemographic predictors.Obesity201534–1538. 10.1038/oby.2012.25

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  SparingR.MottaghyF. M. (2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation with transcranial magnetic or direct current stimulation (TMS/tDCS)–from insights into human memory to therapy of its dysfunction.Methods44329–337. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.02.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  StaggC. J.NitscheM. A. (2011). Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation.Neuroscientist1737–53. 10.1177/1073858410386614

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  StephensJ. A.JonesK. T.BerryhillM. E. (2017). Task demands, tDCS intensity, and the COMT val¹⁵⁸met polymorphism impact tDCS-linked working memory training gains.Sci. Rep.7:13463. 10.1038/s41598-017-14030-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  StorrJ. (2009). The Human Face of War.London: Continuum.

  • Google Scholar

• 181

  StreufertS.StreufertS. C. (1968). Risk Taking in Military and Economic Decision Making: An Analysis via an Experimental Simulation (Technical Report No. 16).Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.

  • Google Scholar

• 182

  SuzukiM.OkamuraN.KawachiY.TashiroM.AraoH.HoshishibaT.et al (2008). Discrete cortical regions associated with the musical beauty of major and minor chords.Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.8126–131. 10.3758/CABN.8.2.126

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  TanakaS.HanakawaT.HondaM.WatanabeK. (2009). Enhancement of pinch force in the lower leg by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation.Exp. Brain Res.196459–465. 10.1007/s00221-009-1863-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  TangM. F.HammondG. R. (2013). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over auditory cortex degrades frequency discrimination by affecting temporal, but not place, coding.Eur. J. Neurosci.382802–2811. 10.1111/ejn.12280

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  TeoJ. T.SwayneO. B.CheeranB. J.GreenwoodR. J.RothwellJ. C. (2011). Human theta burst stimulation enhances subsequent motor learning and increases performance variability.Cereb. Cortex211627–1638. 10.1093/cercor/bhq231

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  ThomasJ. L.AdlerA. B.WittelsP.EnneR.JohannesB. (2004). Comparing elite soldiers’ perceptions of psychological and physical demands during military training.Mil. Med.169526–530. 10.7205/MILMED.169.7.526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  TirreW.GugertyL. (1999). A Cognitive Correlates Analysis of Situation Awareness (AFRL-HE-AZ-TR-1998-0086).Mesa, AZ: United States Air Force Research Laboratory.

  • Google Scholar

• 188

  TruongD. Q.MagerowskiG.BlackburnG. L.BiksonM.Alonso-AlonsoM. (2013). Computational modeling of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in obesity: impact of head fat and dose guidelines.Neuroimage Clin.2759–766. 10.1016/j.nicl.2013.05.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  TsengP.HsuT.-Y.ChangC.-F.TzengO. J. L.HungD. L.MuggletonN. G.et al (2012). Unleashing potential: Transcranial direct current stimulation over the right posterior parietal cortex improves change detection in low-performing individuals.J. Neurosci.3210554–10561. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0362-12.2012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  United States Air Force Chief Scientist (2010). Report on Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force Science & Technology During 2010-2030 (TR: XCUSAF).Washington, DC: United States Air Force. 10.21236/ADA525912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  United States Department of the Army (2005). Map Reading and Land Navigation (Field Manual 3-25.26).Washington, DC: United States Department of the Army.

  • Google Scholar

• 192

  UtzK. S.DimovaV.OppenländerK.KerkhoffG. (2010). Electrified minds: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsychology–A review of current data and future implications.Neuropsychologia482789–2810. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  VallerandA. H.CoslerP.HenningfieldJ. E.GalassiniP. (2015). Pain management strategies and lessons from the military: a narrative review.Pain Res. Manag.20261–268. 10.1155/2015/196025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  van CreveldM. (1985). Command in War.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 195

  van HooffM.McFarlaneA. C.DaviesC. E.SearleA. K.Fairweather-SchmidtA. K.VerhagenA.et al (2014). The Australian Defence Force mental health prevalence and wellbeing study: design and methods.Eur. J. Psychotraumatol.5:23950. 10.3402/ejpt.v5.23950

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  VickersJ. N.LewinskiW. (2012). Performing under pressure: gaze control, decision making and shooting performance of elite and rookie police officers.Hum. Mov. Sci.31101–117. 10.1016/j.humov.2011.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  VignaudP.MondinoM.PouletE.PalmU.BruneliJ. (2018). Duration but not intensity influences transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) after-effects on cortical excitability.Neurophysiol. Clin.4889–92. 10.1016/j.neucli.2018.02.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  Vitor-CostaM.OkunoN. M.BortolottiH.BertolloM.BoggioP. S.FregniF.et al (2015). Improving cycling performance: Transcranial direct current stimulation increases time to exhaustion in cycling.PLoS One10:e0144916. 10.1371/journal.pone.0144916

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  VolkowN. D.FowlerJ. S.LoganJ.AlexoffD.ZhuW.TelangF.et al (2009). Effects of modafinil on dopamine and dopamine transporters in the male human brain: clinical implications.JAMA3011148–1154. 10.1001/jama.2009.351

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  von ClausewitzC. (1989). On Waredstrans.HowardM.ParetP. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 201

  WalleniusC.LarssonG.JohanssonC. R. (2009). Military observers’ reactions and performance when facing danger.Mil. Psychol.16211–229. 10.1207/s15327876mp1604_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  WangJ.WangY.HuZ.LiX. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex increased pain empathy.Neuroscience281202–207. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.09.044

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  WiethoffS.HamadaM.RothwellJ. C. (2014). Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex.Brain Stimul.7468–475. 10.1016/j.brs.2014.02.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  WolfendaleJ. (2008). Performance-enhancing technologies and moral responsibility in the military.Am. J. Bioeth.828–38. 10.1080/15265160802014969

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  World Health Organization (1992). The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines.Geneva: World Health Organization.

  • Google Scholar

• 206

  YeH.ChenS.HuangD.ZhengH.JiaY.LuoJ. (2015). Modulation of neural activity in the temporoparietal junction with transcranial direct current stimulation changes the role of beliefs in moral judgment.Front. Hum. Neurosci.9:659. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00659

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  YoungL.CamprodonJ. A.HauserM.Pascual-LeoneA.SaxeR. (2010). Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1076753–6758. 10.1073/pnas.0914826107

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  ZeidanF.JohnsonS. K.DiamondB. J.DavidZ.GoolkasianP. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: evidence of brief mental training.Conscious. Cogn.19597–605. 10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar