Modulation of Working Memory Using Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: A Direct Comparison Between TACS and TDCS

• Published in: Frontiers in neuroscience Vol. 12; p. 761
• Main Authors: Röhner, Franziska, Breitling, Carolin, Rufener, Katharina S., Heinze, Hans-Jochen, Hinrichs, Hermann, Krauel, Kerstin, Sweeney-Reed, Catherine M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Research Foundation 23.10.2018; Frontiers Media S.A
• Subjects: brain stimulation; Child & adolescent psychiatry; Cognitive ability; Decision making; Electrical stimuli; Intelligence tests; Memory; Mental disorders; n-back; Neurobiology; Neurology; Neuroscience; Neurosciences; Physiology; Prefrontal cortex; Short term memory; Studies; TACS; TDCS; Visual cortex; working memory; Germany; brain stimulation; TACS; n-back; working memory; TDCS
• ISSN: 1662-453X; 1662-4548; 1662-453X
• DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00761

Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) has been considered a promising tool for improving working memory (WM) performance. Recent studies have demonstrated modulation of networks underpinning WM processing through application of transcranial alternating current (TACS) as well as direct current (TDCS) stimulation. Differences between study designs have limited direct comparison of the efficacy of these approaches, however. Here we directly compared the effects of theta TACS (6 Hz) and anodal TDCS on WM, applying TACS to the frontal-parietal loop and TDCS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). WM was evaluated using a visual 2-back WM task. A within-subject, crossover design was applied ( = 30) in three separate sessions. TACS, TDCS, and sham stimulation were administered in a counterbalanced order, and the WM task was performed before, during, and after stimulation. Neither reaction times for hits (RT-hit) nor accuracy differed according to stimulation type with this study design. A marked practice effect was noted, however, with improvement in RT-hit irrespective of stimulation type, which peaked at the end of the second session. Pre-stimulation RT-hits in session three returned to the level observed pre-stimulation in session two, irrespective of stimulation type. The participants who received sham stimulation in session one and had therefore improved their performance due to practice alone, had thus reached a plateau by session two, enabling us to pool RT-hits from sessions two and three for these participants. The pooling allowed implementation of a within-subject crossover study design, with a direct comparison of the effects of TACS and TDCS in a subgroup of participants ( = 10), each of whom received both stimulation types, in a counterbalanced order, with pre-stimulation performance the same for both sessions. TACS resulted in a greater improvement in RT-hits than TDCS ( (2,18) = 4.31 = 0.03). Our findings suggest that future work optimizing the application of TACS has the potential to facilitate WM performance.