{"title":"经颅直流电刺激对健康人群执行功能调节的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Guopeng You, Xinliang Pan, Jun Li, Shaocong Zhao","doi":"10.3389/fnhum.2024.1485037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional research has asserted that cognitive function, particularly, response inhibition, is closely related to the inferior frontal cortex (IFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or orbital frontal cortex (OFC), which belong to the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Different targets of anodal or cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) would affect the experimental results, but the stimulation of the same brain target would produce inconsistent findings.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effects of a-tDCS and c-tDCS applied over the PFC for healthy populations on reactive and proactive control process compared with sham or no tDCS conditions, as assessed using the Stop-signal task (SST) and Go/NoGo (GNG) task performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Search was conducted on Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Scopus, and Science Direct until March 2024. Studies that assessed the inhibitory control in SST or/and GNG tasks were included to achieve a homogenous sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included for meta-analyses, which were performed for two outcome measures, namely, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and commission error (CE) rate. A-tDCS and c-tDCS over the PFC had significant ergogenic effects on SST performance (mean difference = -17.03, 95% CI [-24.62, -9.43], <i>p</i> < 0.0001; mean difference = -15.19, 95% CI [-19.82, -10.55], <i>p</i> < 0.00001), and that of a-tDCS had a positive effect on GNG task performance (mean difference = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.14], <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review confirmed the engagement of PFC tDCS in reactive and proactive inhibitory processes. Future research should increase sample size and implement personalized stimulus protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":12536,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience","volume":"18 ","pages":"1485037"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11671507/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on modulating executive functions in healthy populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Guopeng You, Xinliang Pan, Jun Li, Shaocong Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fnhum.2024.1485037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional research has asserted that cognitive function, particularly, response inhibition, is closely related to the inferior frontal cortex (IFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or orbital frontal cortex (OFC), which belong to the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Different targets of anodal or cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) would affect the experimental results, but the stimulation of the same brain target would produce inconsistent findings.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the effects of a-tDCS and c-tDCS applied over the PFC for healthy populations on reactive and proactive control process compared with sham or no tDCS conditions, as assessed using the Stop-signal task (SST) and Go/NoGo (GNG) task performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Search was conducted on Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Scopus, and Science Direct until March 2024. Studies that assessed the inhibitory control in SST or/and GNG tasks were included to achieve a homogenous sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included for meta-analyses, which were performed for two outcome measures, namely, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and commission error (CE) rate. A-tDCS and c-tDCS over the PFC had significant ergogenic effects on SST performance (mean difference = -17.03, 95% CI [-24.62, -9.43], <i>p</i> < 0.0001; mean difference = -15.19, 95% CI [-19.82, -10.55], <i>p</i> < 0.00001), and that of a-tDCS had a positive effect on GNG task performance (mean difference = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.14], <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review confirmed the engagement of PFC tDCS in reactive and proactive inhibitory processes. Future research should increase sample size and implement personalized stimulus protocols.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"1485037\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11671507/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1485037\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1485037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:传统研究认为,认知功能,特别是反应抑制,与下额叶皮质(IFC)、背外侧前额叶皮质(DLPFC)或眶额叶皮质(OFC)密切相关,后者属于前额叶皮质(PFC)。经颅直流电刺激(a-tDCS或c-tDCS)的不同靶点会影响实验结果,但对同一脑靶点的刺激会产生不一致的结果。目的:本研究旨在通过停止信号任务(SST)和Go/NoGo (GNG)任务表现来评估在健康人群PFC上应用a-tDCS和c-tDCS与假tDCS或无tDCS条件相比,对反应性和主动性控制过程的影响。方法:本系统评价按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行。搜索在Web of Science, b谷歌Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Scopus和Science Direct上进行,直到2024年3月。评估SST或/和GNG任务中的抑制控制的研究包括在内,以实现同质样本。结果:14项研究纳入meta分析,对两项结果进行了测量,即停止信号反应时间(SSRT)和操作错误率(CE)。a- tdcs和c-tDCS在PFC上对SST表现有显著的经人效应(平均差值 = -17.03,95% CI [-24.62, -9.43], p p < 0.00001), a- tdcs对GNG任务表现有积极影响(平均差值 = -1.42,95% CI [-2.71, -0.14], p = 0.03)。结论:本综述证实PFC tDCS参与反应性和主动抑制过程。未来的研究应增加样本量,实施个性化的刺激方案。
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on modulating executive functions in healthy populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Conventional research has asserted that cognitive function, particularly, response inhibition, is closely related to the inferior frontal cortex (IFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or orbital frontal cortex (OFC), which belong to the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Different targets of anodal or cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) would affect the experimental results, but the stimulation of the same brain target would produce inconsistent findings.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of a-tDCS and c-tDCS applied over the PFC for healthy populations on reactive and proactive control process compared with sham or no tDCS conditions, as assessed using the Stop-signal task (SST) and Go/NoGo (GNG) task performance.
Methods: This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Search was conducted on Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Scopus, and Science Direct until March 2024. Studies that assessed the inhibitory control in SST or/and GNG tasks were included to achieve a homogenous sample.
Results: Fourteen studies were included for meta-analyses, which were performed for two outcome measures, namely, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and commission error (CE) rate. A-tDCS and c-tDCS over the PFC had significant ergogenic effects on SST performance (mean difference = -17.03, 95% CI [-24.62, -9.43], p < 0.0001; mean difference = -15.19, 95% CI [-19.82, -10.55], p < 0.00001), and that of a-tDCS had a positive effect on GNG task performance (mean difference = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.14], p = 0.03).
Conclusion: This review confirmed the engagement of PFC tDCS in reactive and proactive inhibitory processes. Future research should increase sample size and implement personalized stimulus protocols.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience is a first-tier electronic journal devoted to understanding the brain mechanisms supporting cognitive and social behavior in humans, and how these mechanisms might be altered in disease states. The last 25 years have seen an explosive growth in both the methods and the theoretical constructs available to study the human brain. Advances in electrophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropsychological, psychophysical, neuropharmacological and computational approaches have provided key insights into the mechanisms of a broad range of human behaviors in both health and disease. Work in human neuroscience ranges from the cognitive domain, including areas such as memory, attention, language and perception to the social domain, with this last subject addressing topics, such as interpersonal interactions, social discourse and emotional regulation. How these processes unfold during development, mature in adulthood and often decline in aging, and how they are altered in a host of developmental, neurological and psychiatric disorders, has become increasingly amenable to human neuroscience research approaches. Work in human neuroscience has influenced many areas of inquiry ranging from social and cognitive psychology to economics, law and public policy. Accordingly, our journal will provide a forum for human research spanning all areas of human cognitive, social, developmental and translational neuroscience using any research approach.