Abstract
Prefrontal electric stimulation has been demonstrated to effectively modulate cognitive processing. Specifically, the amelioration of cognitive control (CC) over emotional distraction by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) points toward targeted therapeutic applications in various psychiatric disorders. In addition to behavioral measures, autonomous nervous system (ANS) responses are fundamental bodily signatures of emotional information processing. However, interactions between the modulation of CC by tDCS and ANS responses have received limited attention. We here report on ANS data gathered in healthy subjects that performed an emotional CC task parallel to the modulation of left prefrontal cortical activity by 1 mA anodal or sham tDCS. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) to negative and neutral pictures of human scenes were reduced by anodal as compared to sham tDCS. Individual SCR amplitude variations were associated with the amount of distraction. Moreover, the stimulation-driven performance- and SCR-modulations were related in form of a quadratic, inverse-U function. Thus, our results indicate that non-invasive brain stimulation (i.e., anodal tDCS) can modulate autonomous responses synchronous to behavioral improvements, but the range of possible concurrent improvements from prefrontal stimulation is limited. Interactions between cognitive, affective, neurophysiological, and vegetative responses to emotional content can shape brain stimulation effectiveness and require theory-driven integration in potential treatment protocols.
Introduction
Non-invasive brain stimulation has been shown to be effective in the modulation of cognitive control (CC) in healthy subjects and various psychiatric disorders (; ; ). In particular, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been demonstrated to reduce emotional biases in major depression under controlled conditions (; ). Therefore, by augmenting cortical activity in prefrontal regions, anodal tDCS can counteract disorder-specific CC deficits with possible positive effects on depression symptomatology (; ; ; ; ; ). Central to intervention strategies that employ tDCS is the cognitive task performed during the stimulation, because task demands and cortical activation is associated with neuromodulatory effects (; ; ; ). In emotional tasks, goal-directed behavior can be disrupted by salient emotional information. In turn, specific activation of prefrontal regions can modulate and subordinate emotional responses to irrelevant distraction. In this context, PFC activity corresponds with the preservation of goal-directed cognitive performance (; ). At the same time, visceral feedback from autonomic responses to emotional distractors is critically integrated in cognitive processing (), and such overt or covert body-state structures are suggested to be relevant for human reasoning and decision making (). Accordingly, if a CC task requires the suppression of distracting emotional information, effective behavior is possibly deflected by arousing emotional information already on a vegetative level.
Explicit strategies to up- or downregulate negative emotional experience can modify responses of the autonomous nervous system (ANS; ; ). Notably, emotion reappraisal efficacy can be augmented by anodal tDCS in both directions, and corresponding vegetative changes in skin conductance responses (SCRs) were documented (). However, in a natural context, emotional content often distracts effective processing automatically, engaging neural systems differentially: relative to reappraisal, distraction engaged less amygdala activity, but prefrontal, and parietal activation was increased (). Consequently, the tight interplay of prefrontal and subcortical systems () as a basis of CC is also expressed in according responses of the ANS. In this context, SCRs were sensitive to cognitive conflicts, (aware) error commitment (), and correlated with post-error behavioral adjustments (; ). To date, only few studies have reported effects of prefrontal tDCS on autonomic responses (). For instance, during blocks of emotional (negative and neutral) picture viewing, left anodal tDCS was associated with lower cortisol levels and higher high-frequency heart-rate variability (). In resting state, there was no autonomous response to tDCS with an extracephalic reference in either heart-rate (variability), respiratory rate, blood pressure, or sympatho-vagal balance (). From different tasks, it was also noted that the effect of cathodal tDCS on impulsivity and truth-telling was associated with altered SCRs (; ). We reasoned that any modulation of ANS responses by prefrontal tDCS should be related to requirements of a task performed during the stimulation.
In contrast, there is good evidence on the efficacy of working memory improvements from anodal tDCS to the prefrontal cortex (; ; see also: ). Specifically, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that anodal tDCS improved reaction time and/or accuracy in the n-back task (; ; but see also: ), a task that requires recurrent updating of working memory. To sum up, tDCS can modulate vegetative responses to emotional stimuli and the modulation of CC is most likely accompanied by vegetative reactions. With this study, we further focus on the interrelations of CC over emotional stimuli in a working memory task, in case of the modulation of SCRs to neutral and emotional distraction by prefrontal activity-enhancing, anodal tDCS.
More precisely, we closely follow up on the CC modulation over emotional content by prefrontal tDCS (). This intervention with anodal tDCS was described to ameliorate CC in depressive patients (), while inhibitory, cathodal tDCS induced a depression-like attentional bias in healthy participants (). An understanding of CC in emotional processing includes the goal-directed suppression of task-irrelevant processing, i.e., accurate working memory retrieval following the distraction by an emotional picture. Thus, not only prefrontal activation, but also its interplay with subcortical regions (i.e., the limbic system) and accompanied responses of the ANS must be considered. Crucially, whereas suppression of non-emotional content in other tasks (stop-signal task, conflict Stroop task) is also referred to CC processes, differential brain patterns might be involved. The modulation of such non-emotional CC processes by non-invasive brain stimulation might similarly rely on accompanied (medial-frontal) network activation (). Here, and to better define the cognitive and physiological mechanisms involved in CC modulations over emotional distraction, it was suggested to also explore network loci of tDCS effects on affect regulation (). Thus, we report on recordings of electrodermal activity to emotional content during sham and anodal tDCS. More precisely, SCRs were selected as an appropriate measure compliant with a brief online emotional distraction paradigm, i.e., as opposed to more slow-paced ANS measures such as heart rate variability. During the stimulation, healthy participants solved a delayed-response working memory task. Negative, neutral, or positive content pictures of human scenes were presented in the delay period of the task to distract participants and thereby impair their cognitive-behavioral performance. A functional suppression of automatic emotional processing by CC was implicitly required by the task, and we hypothesized that SCRs should be attenuated by CC enhancing, anodal tDCS to the prefrontal cortex.
Materials and Methods
The current study was part of a larger project evaluating the feasibility of CC modulations by tDCS in healthy and depressed individuals (). Data on electrodermal activity and their modulation by tDCS are reported for the first time here and the data were gathered from a subgroup of healthy participants. We also re-analyzed the behavioral data for this subgroup in order to present a comprehensive picture of the experiment.
Participants
A total of 22 healthy participants was recruited for the study, but electrodermal recordings failed in four cases due to technical problems. Thus, physiological data were available for 18 right-handed healthy participants (mean age = 31.3 years, SD = 2.5 years, three male). All participants were separately screened by a structured clinical interview for a history or presence of psychiatric disorder (SCID-I; ). Further exclusion criteria were assessed in the preceding diagnostic appointment and included: seizures, past or present neurologic conditions, metal objects in head-area, pacemaker, pregnancy, verbal IQ < 80, and insufficient knowledge of the German language. Healthy participants were invited to two experimental sessions (sham and anodal tDCS) in counterbalanced order on separate days. The experimental procedure was approved by the ethics committee of the University Hospital Tuebingen (approval ID: 211/2010BO1). All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received monetary compensation. Besides the general information given in the consent, all subjects were naïve with regard to the aim of the study.
Experimental Design and Procedure
The study followed a cross-over, double-blinded, sham-controlled design. All participants underwent the two experimental conditions (sham, anodal tDCS) in counterbalanced order on separate days, but within 1 week. Screening for psychiatric conditions and exclusion criteria was carried out on a separate day before testing.
After preparation of stimulation and electrodermal recording, participants completed the Delayed-Response Working Memory task (), a task that continuously requires CC over automatic emotional activation (). In each trial of the task, six letters were presented as a row-sequence for 2 s. Participants were instructed to remember these letters throughout the trial. For the following 6 s, one interfering picture (negative, neutral, or positive content) was displayed. After the delay, a probe letter was presented for 4 s and participants had to indicate as fast as possible whether the probe letter was part of the memorized letter-sequence by pressing a keyboard button. The task consisted of 45 trials with equal contingencies for picture contents and was preceded by 10 additional exercise-trials. The exercise-trials were not included in the analyses. The same distractors were used in both sessions in randomized order. In order to reduce content-interference, all pictures displayed human scenes and centrally filled 2/3 of the screen. The pictures were taken from the standardized Emotional Picture Set (EmoPicS; ). Participants rated all stimuli separately for pleasantness and arousal intensity on a 9-point Likert scale (1: negative/not at all arousing, 9: positive/very arousing).
tDCS
Transcranial direct current stimulation was administered by a battery-driven CE-certified DC-Stimulator (NeuroConn GmbH, Illmenau, Germany) using a pair of saline-soaked 5 × 7 sponge electrodes (maximum current density: 0.02857 mA/cm2). The anode electrode was placed over the left dlPFC (F3 according to the international 10–20 system of electrode-placement; ) and the cathode, return electrode was fixed to the right upper arm (M. deltoideus) to avoid an opposite polarization of another cortex area (). Predefined codes assigned to either sham or verum stimulation were used to start the stimulation, effectively blinding both experimenter, and participant. For sham stimulation, the current was ramped down after 40 s (cf. ), which is known to elicit similar sensations to verum stimulation and to conceal possible motivational effects. Yet, blinding efficacy was not assessed explicitly. For verum stimulation (and the beginning of the sham stimulation), a constant current of 1 mA with a linear fade-in/fade-out phase of 5 s was administered for a duration of 20 min. The task started 5 min after stimulation onset, and thus participants completed the task parallel to verum stimulation, or started and completed the task after sham stimulation had ended. The order of sham and verum tDCS was counterbalanced across participants.
Electrodermal Recordings
Electrodermal activity was continuously recorded (sampling rate: 5000 Hz) by two Ag/AgCI skin electrodes of a BrainVision GSR MR module (Brain Products GmbH, Munich, Germany) with a constant voltage of 0.5 V. Bilateral electro-dermal activity was derived from the index- and ring finger of the left hand with isotonic paste (Mansfield R&D, St. Albans, VT, USA). The measured curve was segmented offline for the emotional conditions of the task. SCRs for clear peaks were determined within a range of 6 s after stimulus onset. Manual corrections were conducted for unspecific reactions and artifacts were rejected (unnatural large amplitudes (>2 μs), reactions before stimulus presentation or steep, sudden rise or drop of the curve). The mean difference between peak and plateau (baseline-corrected, 500 ms pre stimulus) of all artifact-free episodes for each condition and participant was determined as SCR amplitude and submitted to further analyses. SCR amplitudes were log-transformed to normalize their distribution.
Data Treatment
Mean valence and arousal ratings for positive, neutral, and negative pictures were pairwise compared. We also analyzed accuracy rates in the delayed-response working memory task using paired t-tests for the effect of tDCS on performance distractions by each of the three valence levels. This analysis was chosen to confirm the previously reported findings from a larger sample ().
For electrodermal recordings, the individual SCR amplitude was extracted and submitted to a 2 × 3 repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) comprising the factors stimulationVERUM,SHAM and valencepos,neg,neu. We followed up on significant findings with paired t-tests for each level of valence. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals are reported for follow-up paired t-tests (). The alpha level was set at α = 0.05.
To investigate associations between individual performance variations in the delayed-response working memory task and SCR responses, we computed the within-subjects correlation across all conditions (). To further specify the association between performance and SCR modulations by tDCS, we also performed an exploratory hierarchical multiple regression analysis on the change scores. In this additional analysis, we were interested in the interrelations of stimulation effects: are SCR modulations necessarily followed by performance improvements, or is the range of effective tDCS modulations limited? To characterize this relationship, we performed a hierarchical model selection: change in performance was the dependent variable, and mean-centered change in SCR on a linear (Step 1) and quadratic term (Step 2) were predictor variables. In Step 3, the categorical variable valencePOS,NEG,NEU was transformed to two dummy-coded indicator variables and these predictors were added to a full model. Following theory-motivated model selection, we tested the coefficients for the included predictors. Tests for normal distributions on the continuous measures signaled no deviations (ps > 0.31). The Breusch–Pagan test for heteroscedacity was not significant (Chi2 = 8.02, p = 0.09).
Results
Behavioral Data
Self-report ratings for positive, neutral, and negative picture valence and arousal are shown in Table 1. For valence, the ratings followed the expected pattern with highest scores of pleasantness for positive and lowest scores for negative pictures. For arousal, neutral pictures were reported as less arousing than negative and positive pictures, and negative pictures aroused participants the most. All pairwise comparisons yielded significant differences in valence ratings, ps < 0.001, and in arousal ratings, ps < 0.002.
Table 1
| Negative M (SE) | Neutral M (SE) | Positive M (SE) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valence | 2.23 (0.18) | 4.76 (0.23) | 7.04 (0.22) |
| Arousal | 5.90 (0.32) | 1.74 (0.22) | 4.10 (0.30) |
Ratings for Valence and Arousal were given on a 9-point Likert scale (1: negative/not at all arousing, 9: positive/very arousing).
Mean accuracy rates for the three valence levels and two stimulation conditions are depicted in Figure 1A. Participants gave more accurate responses during anodal stimulation following neutral pictures, t(17) = 2.61, p = 0.018, d = 0.64 [95% CI: 0.006; 0.078]. For emotional (positive and negative) stimuli, there was no effect of tDCS, ps > 0.59. Thus, the analysis for this subgroup corresponds with the general behavioral findings for healthy participants reported before ().
FIGURE 1
Electrodermal Activity
Mean SCRs to negative, positive, and neutral content as a function of the stimulation condition (sham vs. anodal tDCS) are displayed in Figure 1B. The data were submitted to a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA comprising the factors valencePOS,NEG,NEU and stimulationVERUM,SHAM. There was a significant main effect of stimulationVERUM,SHAM, F(1,17) = 8.70, p = 0.009, = 0.34, but the main effect of valencePOS,NEG,NEU was not significant, F(2,16) = 2.03, p = 0.15. However, a two-way interaction of stimulationVERUM,SHAM and valencePOS,NEG,NEU emerged, F(2,16) = 5.22, p = 0.011, = 0.24. We followed up on this result with paired t-tests for each of the three valence types.
Anodal tDCS significantly reduced SCR amplitudes following negative content, t(17) = 2.94, p = 0.009, d = 0.56 [95% CI: 0.018; 0.109], and following neutral content, t(17) = 3.67, p = 0.002, d = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.031; 0.115]. Notably, there was no modulation of responses to positive content, t(17) = 0.46, p = 0.65. As a consequence, SCRs to positive pictures were marginally larger than SCRs to neutral pictures during anodal tDCS, t(17) = 2.14, p = 0.048, d = 0.51 [95% CI: -0.0002; 0.0838], but they did not differ in amplitude to SCRs to negative pictures, t(17) = 0.37, p = 0.72. In contrast, during sham tDCS, the difference between negative and positive picture SCRs was significant, t(17) = 3.10, p = 0.006, d = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.0212; 0.1114]. The remaining paired differences in the sham and verum sessions were not significant, ps > 0.08.
Within-Subjects Correlation: Functional Relevance of SCR for Performance
The Bland-Altman within-subjects regression coefficient associated with SCR and performance was significant, b = -0.161, p = 0.027 [95% CI: -0.304; -0.018], and a negative coefficient signaled individual performance increases with SCR decreases, r = -0.214.
Exploratory Analysis: Functional Relevance of SCR Modulation
Finally, we asked whether SCR and performance modulations by excitatory stimulation were interconnected. We first hypothesized that performance improvements and SCR attenuations by anodal tDCS as outlined above could directly relate. However, a simple regression model (within-subjects) with ΔSCRLINEAR as mean-centered predictor for ΔAccuracy was not significant, F(2,53) = 1.77, p = 0.18, R2adjusted = 0.03. We next hypothesized the range of effective tDCS modulations on both SCR and performance to be limited, i.e., because – artificially stimulated – large as opposed to small SCR modulations might become detrimental to CC performance (i.e., ). Thus, we next included a quadratic term ΔSCRSQUARED (Figure 2). The corresponding model fit improved tremendously, ΔF = 12.66, p = 0.001, ΔR2adjusted = 0.19. Further inclusion of valence in a full model did not yield significant improvements, ΔF = 0.498, p = 0.611, ΔR2adjusted = 0.02. Whereas we already outlined direct effects and interactions of valence on performance and SCR, the relationship between SCR and performance please emphasize seemed akin across the valence conditions.
FIGURE 2
After model selection, we proceeded with testing the predictors. With regard to the best regression model including both linear and quadratic predictors, F(3,53) = 5.67, p = 0.002, R2adjusted = 0.209, negative-signed coefficients emerged for both predictors, and ΔSCRSQUARED was significant, b = -3.158, β = -0.482, p = 0.001 [95% CI: -4.941; -1.376], whereas ΔSCRLINEAR was not significant, b = -0.063, β = -0.065, p = 0.63. Also, the intercept was significantly shifted, b = 0.057, p = 0.042 [95% CI: 0.002; 0.112]. Given that the predictors were mean-centered, the significant intercept estimates approximate performance improvements from anodal tDCS by 5.7 ± 2.7% in cases were the vegetative response was reduced by a mean ΔSCR of 1.128 ± 0.240 μs. According to the model, both additional in- or decreases in SCR diminished the performance, outlining an inverse-U shape functional relationship.
Discussion
Our results demonstrate that non-invasive brain stimulation, i.e., anodal tDCS to the prefrontal cortex, can modulate automatic vegetative responses (SCR amplitudes) of healthy participants to negative and neutral distractors in a working memory task. In this study, the already smaller SCR amplitudes to positive distractors were not modulated by tDCS. Notably, individual working memory performance, indicative of the amount of distraction by emotional information, was associated with SCR amplitude.
For the trials with emotional distractors, no behavioral improvements by tDCS were detected (cf. ), but SCRs to negative distractors were reduced to a level of positive distractors. Consequently, our exploratory regression analysis revealed an inverse U-shape relationship between performance and SCR modulations by tDCS, suggesting that a reduction of distraction in the working memory task was associated with a specific SCR reduction. Further cross-validation of this model with different stimuli and additional physiological measures (i.e., heart-rate variability, oscillatory brain activity) will be necessary to clarify the generality of this association and to refine the cognitive-physiological underpinnings of CC modulations. Also, whereas our results are suggestive of an effect of anodal tDCS, further active control conditions are needed to account for general vs. polarity-specific stimulation effects. Nevertheless, our findings provide preliminary evidence for a functional relevance of ANS modulations for the effects of tDCS on CC. Moreover, SCR modulations by tDCS may index subtle effectiveness of this intervention. However, given that tDCS effects on ANS have been scarcely investigated before (), further studies are needed to investigate outstanding ambiguities and to also establish the integration of other indices such as heart-rate variability into corresponding paradigms.
For effective CC over emotional deflection, several distinct mechanisms were described (). First, voluntary regulation of emotional intensity can activate reappraisal strategies. The effectiveness of anodal tDCS to the right prefrontal cortex in voluntary emotion regulation was underscored by corresponding changes in vegetative responses (). Second, the automatic activation of an emotional response also involves vegetative responses (), and our study provides first evidence that this mechanism is malleable by prefrontal tDCS.
Considering the accumulating evidence that CC processes for emotional and non-emotional conflicts dissociate (), it is likely that suppression of distractive neutral content recruits different pathways than suppression of distractive emotional content. Our findings support this notion by providing both behaviorally and physiologically distinct effects of the stimulation. Notably, our results differ from findings reported in MDD patients that typically show improvements in emotional processing following excitatory stimulation (; ,; ). In addition, both behavioral and autonomous effects of non-invasive brain stimulation, i.e., cortisol concentration, can largely dissociate and even reverse in (sub-)clinical or trait-specific differing populations (). In this line, while performance in a non-emotional working memory task was enhanced by tDCS in both healthy and depressed individuals, MDD patients exclusively presented improvements in emotional cognition from prefrontal anodal stimulation (). Similarly, in our study, the direct behavioral effect of tDCS was restricted to neutral pictures in healthy participants. In SCRs, however, we are able to document more subtle changes in vegetative responses.
One shortcoming of our results is that SCRs to positive pictures were already smaller than to negative pictures during the sham-session and thereof, likely, we did not observe a modulation of SCRs to positive content by tDCS. At first, this pattern seems inconsistent with the established view that arousal, but not valence drives autonomous responses (; ). However, valence-driven ANS responses produced rather ambiguous results in the literature (): for instance, regarding positive affect, SCRs varied largely depending on the emotional subtype, such as joy, happiness, or contentment. Similar to our results, non-human, potential phobic, and neutral stimuli produced equally large SCRs in a previous study () and similar SCR responses to negative and neutral, but not positive facial expressions were described (; but see: ). Integrating our other observations, both cortical and vegetative responses to emotional content that eventually determine tDCS effectiveness likely depend on rather specific task and individual characteristics, i.e., genotype (). Also, the individual interpretation of emotional distraction is variable and no specific regulation instruction was given in our study, limiting the conclusions we can draw from this unexpected pattern of results.
The prefrontal cortex is involved in a multitude of functions, and tDCS applications proved effective in modulating various aspects of cognition besides affect regulation (). Attributing the tDCS effect reported in this study to a general modification of working memory, a widely accepted mechanism (), however, comes short of the exact requirements of the task, that is, updating and retrieval of a letter string series was possibly perturbed by the intermediate presentation of emotional pictures. It follows that in this specific working memory task it is necessary to down-regulate emotional (including autonomous) responses to task-irrelevant content in order to correctly identify the probe letter. Thus, our results correspond to both effects of tDCS on emotion reappraisal () and CC in a larger sense (; ).
Previous studies on tDCS effectiveness have focused more on cortical than on limbic and vegetative processes. However, considering that cognitive processes constantly integrate visceral feedback, studies on vegetative consequences of a stimulation may offer further insights into the mechanisms of CC involved in emotional (dis-)engagement (). While emotional states are reflected in various autonomous indices, their causal directionality is not self-explanatory and afferent information can also influence bodily emotional state (). Excitatory stimulation to prefrontal regions might facilitate an early retraction from the visceral-cognitive feedback loops following task-induced emotions, and synchronous performance-emotion improvements by anodal tDCS have been documented (). In the presented setting and in related training paradigms, both network effects of affect regulation and visceral integration may interact with potential modulations by non-invasive brain stimulation.
Conclusion
We outlined that vegetative responses to emotional and neutral stimuli can be modulated by non-invasive brain stimulation. In the CC paradigm applied, SCRs to negative and neutral distractors were significantly diminished by anodal as compared to sham tDCS. A possible functional relevance of somatic responses for efficient control of emotional distraction was outlined, and the preliminary evidence for modulatory associations suggests an inverse-U relation between performance and ANS modulations by tDCS. The study thereby augments our knowledge on the interrelations between cognitive-affective and physiological processes and their malleability by prefrontal stimulation. Future studies may investigate the physiological and neurophysiological underpinnings of CC enhancement by non-invasive brain stimulation, their polarity-specificity and exploit cognitive–visceral interrelations in clinical applications.
Statements
Author contributions
CP and LW designed study, CP and LW collected data, PS, LW, AE, and CP analyzed data, PS, AF, LW, AE, and CP contributed to the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Open Access Publishing Fund of Tuebingen University. Dr. Plewnia is supported by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung BMBF (Grant N° FKZ 01EE1403D and FKZ 01EE1407H). Dr. Wolkenstein received a grant from the Wilhelm Schuler-Stiftung, Germany.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AlpersG. W.AdolphD.PauliP. (2011). Emotional scenes and facial expressions elicit different psychophysiological responses.Int. J. Psychophysiol.80173–181. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.01.010
2
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
3
AnticevicA.RepovsG.BarchD. M. (2010). Resisting emotional interference: brain regions facilitating working memory performance during negative distraction.Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.10159–173. 10.3758/CABN.10.2.159
4
BeeliG.CasuttG.BaumgartnerT.JänckeL. (2008). Modulating presence and impulsiveness by external stimulation of the brain.Behav. Brain Funct.4:33. 10.1186/1744-9081-4-33
5
BlandJ. M.AltmanD. G. (1995). Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: part 1–Correlation within subjects.BMJ310:446. 10.1136/bmj.310.6977.446
6
BoggioP. S.RigonattiS. P.RibeiroR. B.MyczkowskiM. L.NitscheM. A.Pascual-LeoneA.et al (2008). A randomized, double-blind clinical trial on the efficacy of cortical direct current stimulation for the treatment of major depression.Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol.11249–254. 10.1017/S1461145707007833
7
BradleyM. M.CodispotiM.SabatinelliD.LangP. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing.Emotion1276–298. 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.300
8
BradleyM. M.LangP. J.CuthbertB. N. (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex: habituation in humans.Behav. Neurosci.107970–980. 10.1037/0735-7044.107.6.970
9
BrunoniA. R.BoggioP. S.De RaedtR.BenseñorI. M.LotufoP. A.NamurV.et al (2014a). Cognitive control therapy and transcranial direct current stimulation for depression: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.J. Affect. Disord.16243–49. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.03.026
10
BrunoniA. R.ZanaoT. A.VanderhasseltM.-A.ValiengoL.de OliveiraJ. F.BoggioP. S.et al (2014b). Enhancement of affective processing induced by bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with major depression.Neuromodulation17138–142. 10.1111/ner.12080
11
BrunoniA. R.FerrucciR.BortolomasiM.ScelzoE.BoggioP. S.FregniF.et al (2013a). Interactions between transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and pharmacological interventions in the Major Depressive Episode: findings from a naturalistic study.Eur. Psychiatry28356–361. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2012.09.001
12
BrunoniA. R.VanderhasseltM.-A.BoggioP. S.FregniF.DantasE. M.MillJ. G.et al (2013b). Polarity- and valence-dependent effects of prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation on heart rate variability and salivary cortisol.Psychoneuroendocrinology3858–66. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.04.020
13
BrunoniA. R.VanderhasseltM.-A. (2014). Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain Cogn.861–9. 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.01.008
14
CritchleyH. D. (2005). Neural mechanisms of autonomic, affective, and cognitive integration.J. Comp. Neurol.493154–166. 10.1002/cne.20749
15
DamasioA. R.EverittB. J.BishopD. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex [and discussion].Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.3511413–1420. 10.1098/rstb.1996.0125
16
De RaedtR.VanderhasseltM.-A.BaekenC. (2014). Neurostimulation as an intervention for treatment resistant depression: from research on mechanisms towards targeted neurocognitive strategies.Clin. Psychol. Rev.10.1016/j.cpr.2014.10.006[Epub ahead].
17
DolcosF.McCarthyG. (2006). Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional distraction.J. Neurosci.262072–2079. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5042-05.2006
18
DriscollD.TranelD.AndersonS. W. (2009). The effects of voluntary regulation of positive and negative emotion on psychophysiological responsiveness.Int. J. Psychophysiol.7261–66. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.03.012
19
EippertF.VeitR.WeiskopfN.ErbM.BirbaumerN.AndersS. (2007). Regulation of emotional responses elicited by threat-related stimuli.Hum. Brain Mapp.28409–423. 10.1002/hbm.20291
20
FeeserM.PrehnK.KazzerP.MungeeA.BajboujM. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances cognitive control during emotion regulation.Brain Stimul.7105–112. 10.1016/j.brs.2013.08.006
21
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
22
FregniF.BoggioP. S.NitscheM. A.BermpohlF.AntalA.FeredoesE.et al (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory.Exp. Brain Res.16623–30. 10.1007/s00221-005-2334-6
23
FregniF.BoggioP. S.NitscheM. A.MarcolinM. A.RigonattiS. P.Pascual-LeoneA. (2006). Treatment of major depression with transcranial direct current stimulation.Bipolar Disord.8203–204. 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2006.00291.x
24
GandigaP. C.HummelF. C.CohenL. G. (2006). Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation.Clin. Neurophysiol.117845–850. 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003
25
GillJ.Shah-basakP. P.HamiltonR. (2015). It’s the thought that counts: examining the task-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on executive function.Brain Stimul.8253–259. 10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.018
26
HajcakG.McDonaldN.SimonsR. F. (2003). To err is autonomic: error-related brain potentials, ANS activity, and post-error compensatory behavior.Psychophysiology40895–903. 10.1111/1469-8986.00107
27
JasperH. H. (1958). The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation.Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.10371–375.
28
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
29
KobayashiN.YoshinoA.TakahashiY.NomuraS. (2007). Autonomic arousal in cognitive conflict resolution.Auton. Neurosci.13270–75. 10.1016/j.autneu.2006.09.004
30
KreibigS. D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: a review.Biol. Psychol.84394–421. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.010
31
KuoM.-F.NitscheM. A. (2012). Effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on cognition.Clin. EEG Neurosci.43192–199. 10.1177/1550059412444975
32
KuoM.-F.NitscheM. A. (2015). Exploring prefrontal cortex functions in healthy humans by transcranial electrical stimulation.Neurosci. Bull.31198–206. 10.1007/s12264-014-1501-9
33
KuoM.-F.PaulusW.NitscheM. A. (2014). Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases.Neuroimage85(Pt 3), 948–960. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.117
34
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs.Front. Psychol.4:483. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
35
LangP. J. (2014). Emotion’s response patterns: the brain and the autonomic nervous system.Emot. Rev.693–99. 10.1177/1754073913512004
36
LeymanL.De RaedtR.VanderhasseltM.-A.BaekenC. (2011). Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on the attentional processing of emotional information in major depression: a pilot study.Psychiatry Res.185102–107. 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.04.008
37
MaltzmanI.BoydG. (1984). Stimulus significance and bilateral SCRs to potentially phobic pictures.J. Abnorm. Psychol.9341–46. 10.1037/0021-843X.93.1.41
38
McRaeK.HughesB.ChopraS.GabrieliJ. D. E.GrossJ. J.OchsnerK. N. (2010). The neural bases of distraction and reappraisal.J. Cogn. Neurosci.22248–262. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21243
39
MorenoM. L.VanderhasseltM.-A.CarvalhoA. F.MoffaA. H.LotufoP. A.BenseñorI. M.et al (2015). Effects of acute transcranial direct current stimulation in hot and cold working memory tasks in healthy and depressed subjects.Neurosci. Lett.591126–131. 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.02.036
40
NieratschkerV.KieferC.GielK.KrügerR.PlewniaC. (2015). The COMT Val/Met polymorphism modulates effects of tDCS on response inhibition.Brain Stimul.8283–288. 10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.009
41
OchsnerK. N.GrossJ. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion.Trends Cogn. Sci.9242–249. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010
42
O’ConnellR. G.DockreeP. M.BellgroveM. A.KellyS. P.HesterR.GaravanH.et al (2007). The role of cingulate cortex in the detection of errors with and without awareness: a high-density electrical mapping study.Eur. J. Neurosci.252571–2579. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05477.x
43
OliveiraJ. F.ZanãoT. A.ValiengoL.LotufoP. A.BenseñorI. M.FregniF.et al (2013). Acute working memory improvement after tDCS in antidepressant-free patients with major depressive disorder.Neurosci. Lett.53760–64. 10.1016/j.neulet.2013.01.023
44
PlewniaC.SchroederP. A.KunzeR.FaehlingF.WolkensteinL. (2015a). Keep calm and carry on: improved frustration tolerance and processing speed by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).PLoS ONE10:e0122578. 10.1371/journal.pone.0122578
45
PlewniaC.SchroederP. A.WolkensteinL. (2015b). Targeting the biased brain: non-invasive brain stimulation to ameliorate cognitive control.Lancet Psychiatry2351–356. 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00056-5
46
PopeP. A.BrentonJ. W.MiallR. C. (2015). Task-specific facilitation of cognition by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex.Cereb. Cortex254551–4558. 10.1093/cercor/bhv094
47
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
48
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
49
SchestatskyP.SimisM.FreemanR.Pascual-LeoneA.FregniF. (2013). Non-invasive brain stimulation and the autonomic nervous system.Clin. Neurophysiol.1241716–1728. 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.03.020
50
SegraveR. A.ArnoldS.HoyK.FitzgeraldP. B. (2014). Concurrent cognitive control training augments the antidepressant efficacy of tDCS: a pilot study.Brain Stimul.7325–331. 10.1016/j.brs.2013.12.008
51
SequeiraH.HotP.SilvertL.DelplanqueS. (2009). Electrical autonomic correlates of emotion.Int. J. Psychophysiol.7150–56. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.07.009
52
SoutschekA.TaylorP. C. J.MüllerH. J.SchubertT. (2013). Dissociable networks control conflict during perception and response selection: a transcranial magnetic stimulation Study.J. Neurosci.335647–5654. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4768-12.2013
53
SteenbergenL.SellaroR.HommelB.LindenbergerU.KühnS.ColzatoL. S. (2015). “Unfocus” on foc.us: commercial tDCS headset impairs working memory.Exp. Brain Res.10.1007/s00221-015-4391-9[Epub ahead of print].
54
TerhuneD. B.Cohen KadoshR. (2013). Modulating cognitive control in major depression with transcranial electrical stimulation.Biol. Psychiatry73595–596. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.01.006
55
VanderhasseltM.-A.De RaedtR.NamurV.LotufoP. A.BensenorI. M.BoggioP. S.et al (2015). Transcranial electric stimulation and neurocognitive training in clinically depressed patients: a pilot study of the effects on rumination.Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry5793–99. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2014.09.015
56
VandermeerenY.JamartJ.OssemannM. (2010). Effect of tDCS with an extracephalic reference electrode on cardio-respiratory and autonomic functions.BMC Neurosci.11:38. 10.1186/1471-2202-11-38
57
VranaS. R.GrossD. (2004). Reactions to facial expressions: effects of social context and speech anxiety on responses to neutral, anger, and joy expressions.Biol. Psychol.6663–78. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.07.004
58
WessaM.HeisslerJ.SchönfelderS.KanskeP. (2013). Goal-directed behavior under emotional distraction is preserved by enhanced task-specific activation.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.8305–312. 10.1093/scan/nsr098
59
WessaM.KanskeP.NeumeisterP.BodeK. (2010). EmoPics: subjektive und psychophysiologische evaluation neuen bildmaterials für die klinisch-bio-psychologische forschung.Z. Klin. Psychol. Psychother.39:77.
60
WittchenH.ZaudigM.FydrichT. (1997). Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV. Achse I und II. Handanweisung.Göttingen: Hogrefe.
61
WolkensteinL.PlewniaC. (2013). Amelioration of cognitive control in depression by transcranial direct current stimulation.Biol. Psychiatry73646–651. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.10.010
62
WolkensteinL.ZeillerM.KanskeP.PlewniaC. (2014). Induction of a depression-like negativity bias by cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation.Cortex59103–112. 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.07.011
63
YuJ.TsengP.HungD. L.WuS.-W.JuanC.-H. (2015). Brain stimulation improves cognitive control by modulating medial-frontal activity and preSMA-vmPFC functional connectivity.Hum. Brain Mapp.364004–4015. 10.1002/hbm.22893
64
ZwisslerB.SperberC.AigeldingerS.SchindlerS.KisslerJ.PlewniaC. (2014). Shaping memory accuracy by left prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation.J. Neurosci.344022–4026. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5407-13.2014
Summary
Keywords
non-invasive brain stimulation, skin conductance response, cognitive control, autonomous nervous system, transcranial direct current stimulation, emotional distraction, automaticity
Citation
Schroeder PA, Ehlis A-C, Wolkenstein L, Fallgatter AJ and Plewnia C (2015) Emotional Distraction and Bodily Reaction: Modulation of Autonomous Responses by Anodal tDCS to the Prefrontal Cortex. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 9:482. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2015.00482
Received
16 September 2015
Accepted
30 November 2015
Published
18 December 2015
Volume
9 - 2015
Edited by
Michael A. Nitsche, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany
Reviewed by
Lorenza S. Colzato, Leiden University, Netherlands; Vera Moliadze, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2015 Schroeder, Ehlis, Wolkenstein, Fallgatter and Plewnia.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Christian Plewnia, christian.plewnia@uni-tuebingen.de
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.