Intervention is a better predictor of tDCS mind-wandering effects than subjective beliefs about experimental results

The importance of individual beliefs in assessing treatment efficacy

In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual's subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants' subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.

Modulation of the executive control network by anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves task shielding in dual tasking

Task shielding is an important executive control demand in dual-task performance enabling the segregation of stimulus-response translation processes in each task to minimize between-task interference. Although neuroimaging studies have shown activity in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) during various multitasking performances, the specific role of dlPFC in task shielding, and whether non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may facilitate task shielding remains unclear. We therefore applied a single-blind, crossover sham-controlled design in which 34 participants performed a dual-task experiment with either anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS, 1 mA, 20 min) or sham tDCS (1 mA, 30 s) over left dlPFC. Task shielding was assessed by the backward-crosstalk effect, indicating the extent of between-task interference in dual tasks. Between-task interference was largest at high temporal overlap between tasks, i.e., at short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Most importantly, in these conditions of highest multitasking demands, atDCS compared to sham stimulation significantly reduced between-task interference in error rates. These findings extend previous neuroimaging evidence and support modulation of successful task shielding through a conventional tDCS setup with anodal electrode over the left dlPFC. Moreover, our results demonstrate that NIBS can improve shielding of the prioritized task processing, especially in conditions of highest vulnerability to between-task interference.