Advertisement

Anodal tDCS affects neuromodulatory effects of the norepinephrine system on superior frontal theta activity during response inhibition

  • Nico Adelhöfer
  • Moritz Mückschel
  • Benjamin Teufert
  • Tjalf Ziemssen
  • Christian BesteEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Medial and superior frontal theta oscillations are important for response inhibition. The norepinephrine (NE) system has been shown to modulate these oscillations possibly via gain control mechanisms, which depend on the modulation of neuron membrane potentials. Because the latter are also modulated by tDCS, the interrelation of tDCS and NE effects on superior frontal theta band activity needs investigation. We test the hypothesis that anodal tDCS affects modulatory effects of the NE system on theta band activity during inhibitory control in superior frontal regions. Using EEG beamforming, theta band activity in the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) was integrated (correlated) with the pupil diameter data as an indirect index of NE activity. In a within-subject design, healthy participants completed a response inhibition task in two sessions in which they received 2 mA anodal tDCS over the vertex, or sham stimulation. There were no behavioral effects of anodal tDCS. Yet, tDCS affected correlations between SFG theta band activity time course and the pupil diameter time course. Correlations were evident after sham stimulation (r = .701; p < .004), but absent after anodal tDCS. The observed power of this dissociation was above 95%. The data suggest that anodal tDCS may eliminate neuromodulatory effects, likely of the NE system, on theta band activity during response inhibition in a structure of the response inhibition network. The NE system and tDCS seem to target similar mechanisms important for cognitive control in the prefrontal cortex. The results provide a hint why tDCS often fails to induce overt behavioral effects and shows that neurobiological systems, which may exert similar effects as tDCS on neural processes should closely be monitored in tDCS experiments.

Keywords

Anodal tDCS EEG Pupil diameter Norepinephrine system Beamforming Superior frontal gyrus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

There are no conflicts of interest. The study was approved by the IRB of the TU Dresden. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before any of the study’s procedures were commenced. This work was supported by Grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) BE4045/26-1 and SFB 940 project B8 to C.B.

References

  1. Adelhöfer N, Gohil K, Passow S et al (2018) The system-neurophysiological basis for how methylphenidate modulates perceptual-attentional conflicts during auditory processing. Hum Brain Mapp 39:5050–5061.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antal A, Kincses TZ, Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2003) Manipulation of phosphene thresholds by transcranial direct current stimulation in man. Exp Brain Res 150:375–378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1459-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA (2014) Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on. Trends Cogn Sci 18:177–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD (2005) An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annu Rev Neurosci 28:403–450.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bari A, Robbins TW (2013) Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural basis of response control. Prog Neurobiol 108:44–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensmann W, Roessner V, Stock A-K, Beste C (2018) Catecholaminergic modulation of conflict control depends on the source of conflicts. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 21:901–909.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyy063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beste C, Ness V, Falkenstein M, Saft C (2011) On the role of fronto-striatal neural synchronization processes for response inhibition–evidence from ERP phase-synchronization analyses in pre-manifest Huntington’s disease gene mutation carriers. Neuropsychologia 49:3484–3493.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beste C, Steenbergen L, Sellaro R et al (2016) Effects of concomitant stimulation of the GABAergic and norepinephrine system on inhibitory control—a study using transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation. Brain Stimulat 9:811–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beste C, Mückschel M, Rosales R et al (2017) Striosomal dysfunction affects behavioral adaptation but not impulsivity—evidence from X-linked dystonia-parkinsonism. Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26895 Google Scholar
  10. Carter MJ, Maslovat D, Carlsen AN (2015) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation applied over the supplementary motor area delays spontaneous antiphase-to-in-phase transitions. J Neurophysiol 113:780–785.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00662.2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavanagh JF, Frank MJ (2014) Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends Cogn Sci 18:414–421.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavanagh JF, Zambrano-Vazquez L, Allen JJB (2012) Theta lingua franca: a common mid-frontal substrate for action monitoring processes. Psychophysiology 49:220–238.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01293.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chamberlain SR, del Campo N, Dowson J et al (2007) Atomoxetine improved response inhibition in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry 62:977–984.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chamberlain SR, Hampshire A, Müller U et al (2009) Atomoxetine modulates right inferior frontal activation during inhibitory control: a pharmacological functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Biol Psychiatry 65:550–555.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chance FS, Abbott LF, Reyes AD (2002) Gain modulation from background synaptic input. Neuron 35:773–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chmielewski WX, Mückschel M, Ziemssen T, Beste C (2017) The norepinephrine system affects specific neurophysiological subprocesses in the modulation of inhibitory control by working memory demands. Hum Brain Mapp 38:68–81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen MX (2014) A neural microcircuit for cognitive conflict detection and signaling. Trends Neurosci 37:480–490.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2014.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Costa VD, Rudebeck PH (2016) More than meets the eye: the relationship between pupil size and locus coeruleus activity. Neuron 89:8–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Blasio FM, Barry RJ (2013) Prestimulus delta and theta determinants of ERP responses in the Go/NoGo task. Int J Psychophysiol Off J Int Organ Psychophysiol 87:279–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.09.016 Google Scholar
  20. Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134:9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dimigen O, Sommer W, Hohlfeld A et al (2011) Coregistration of eye movements and EEG in natural reading: analyses and review. J Exp Psychol Gen 140:552–572.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dippel G, Chmielewski W, Mückschel M, Beste C (2015) Response mode-dependent differences in neurofunctional networks during response inhibition: an EEG-beamforming study. Brain Struct Funct.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-015-1148-y Google Scholar
  23. Dippel G, Mückschel M, Ziemssen T, Beste C (2017) Demands on response inhibition processes determine modulations of theta band activity in superior frontal areas and correlations with pupillometry—implications for the norepinephrine system during inhibitory control. NeuroImage 157:575–585.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagle DM, Bari A, Robbins TW (2008) The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks. Psychopharmacology 199:439–456.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-008-1127-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckstein MK, Guerra-Carrillo B, Miller Singley AT, Bunge SA (2016) Beyond eye gaze: what else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development? Dev Cogn Neurosci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001 Google Scholar
  26. Ettinger U, Faiola E, Kasparbauer A-M et al (2017) Effects of nicotine on response inhibition and interference control. Psychopharmacology 234:1093–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4542-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans JD (1996) Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  28. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Filmer HL, Dux PE, Mattingley JB (2014) Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function. Trends Neurosci 37:742–753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2014.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fotiou DF, Stergiou V, Tsiptsios D et al (2009) Cholinergic deficiency in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease: evaluation with pupillometry. Int J Psychophysiol 73:143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedrich J, Beste C (2018) Paradoxical, causal effects of sensory gain modulation on motor inhibitory control—a tDCS, EEG-source localization study. Sci Rep 8:17486.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35879-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenhouse I, Sias A, Labruna L, Ivry RB (2015) Nonspecific inhibition of the motor system during response preparation. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 35:10675–10684.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1436-15.2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gross J, Kujala J, Hamalainen M et al (2001) Dynamic imaging of coherent sources: studying neural interactions in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:694–699.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harper J, Malone SM, Bernat EM (2014) Theta and delta band activity explain N2 and P3 ERP component activity in a go/no-go task. Clin Neurophysiol Off J Int Fed Clin Neurophysiol 125:124–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.06.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hay E, Segev I (2015) Dendritic excitability and gain control in recurrent cortical microcircuits. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991 25:3561–3571.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu200 Google Scholar
  36. Hayduk-Costa G, Drummond NM, Carlsen AN (2013) Anodal tDCS over SMA decreases the probability of withholding an anticipated action. Behav Brain Res 257:208–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Helton WS (2009) Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31:39–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390801978856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Helton WS, Hollander TD, Warm JS et al (2005) Signal regularity and the mindlessness model of vigilance. Br J Psychol Lond Engl 1953 96:249–261.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X38369 Google Scholar
  39. Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O (2015) Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulat 8:535–550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hou RH, Freeman C, Langley RW et al (2005) Does modafinil activate the locus coeruleus in man? Comparison of modafinil and clonidine on arousal and autonomic functions in human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 181:537–549.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-005-0013-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huster RJ, Enriquez-Geppert S, Lavallee CF et al (2013) Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: functional networks and cognitive contributions. Int J Psychophysiol Off J Int Organ Psychophysiol 87:217–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.001 Google Scholar
  42. Jacobson L, Javitt DC, Lavidor M (2011) Activation of inhibition: diminishing impulsive behavior by direct current stimulation over the inferior frontal gyrus. J Cogn Neurosci 23:3380–3387.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Joshi S, Li Y, Kalwani RM, Gold JI (2016) Relationships between pupil diameter and neuronal activity in the locus coeruleus, colliculi, and cingulate cortex. Neuron 89:221–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kamp S-M, Donchin E (2015) ERP and pupil responses to deviance in an oddball paradigm. Psychophysiology 52:460–471.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lafon B, Rahman A, Bikson M, Parra LC (2017) Direct current stimulation alters neuronal input/output function. Brain Stimulat 10:36–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lavallee CF, Herrmann CS, Weerda R, Huster RJ (2014) Stimulus-response mappings shape inhibition processes: a combined EEG-fMRI study of contextual stopping. PloS One 9:e96159.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee C, Jung Y-J, Lee SJ, Im C-H (2017) COMETS2: An advanced MATLAB toolbox for the numerical analysis of electric fields generated by transcranial direct current stimulation. J Neurosci Methods 277:56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Li S-C, Rieckmann A (2014) Neuromodulation and aging: implications of aging neuronal gain control on cognition. Curr Opin Neurobiol 29:148–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Li S-C, Lindenberger U, Sikström S (2001) Aging cognition: from neuromodulation to representation. Trends Cogn Sci 5:479–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01769-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maris E, Oostenveld R (2007) Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J Neurosci Methods 164:177–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McVay JC, Kane MJ (2009) Conducting the train of thought: working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 35:196–204.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Molaee-Ardekani B, Márquez-Ruiz J, Merlet I et al (2013) Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cortical activity: a computational modeling study. Brain Stimulat 6:25–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mückschel M, Gohil K, Ziemssen T, Beste C (2016) The norepinephrine system and its relevance for multi-component behavior. NeuroImage.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.007 Google Scholar
  54. Mückschel M, Chmielewski W, Ziemssen T, Beste C (2017) The norepinephrine system shows information-content specific properties during cognitive control—evidence from EEG and pupillary responses. NeuroImage.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.036 Google Scholar
  55. Naicker P, Anoopkumar-Dukie S, Grant GD et al (2016) Central cholinergic pathway involvement in the regulation of pupil diameter, blink rate and cognitive function. Neuroscience 334:180–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD (2005) Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus–norepinephrine system. Psychol Bull 131:510–532.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nieuwenhuis S, De Geus EJ, Aston-Jones G (2011) The anatomical and functional relationship between the P3 and autonomic components of the orienting response. Psychophysiology 48:162–175.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01057.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2000) Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol 527 Pt 3:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM et al (2008) Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimulat 1:206–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen J-M (2011) FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/156869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phillips MA, Szabadi E, Bradshaw CM (2000) Comparison of the effects of clonidine and yohimbine on spontaneous pupillary fluctuations in healthy human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 150:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Quetscher C, Yildiz A, Dharmadhikari S et al (2015) Striatal GABA-MRS predicts response inhibition performance and its cortical electrophysiological correlates. Brain Struct Funct 220:3555–3564.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0873-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rahman A, Lafon B, Parra LC, Bikson M (2017) Direct current stimulation boosts synaptic gain and cooperativity in vitro. J Physiol 595:3535–3547.  https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reinhart RMG, Cosman JD, Fukuda K, Woodman GF (2017) Using transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) to understand cognitive processing. Atten Percept Psychophys 79:3–23.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1224-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J et al (1997) `Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 35:747–758.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salinas E, Thier P (2000) Gain modulation: a major computational principle of the central nervous system. Neuron 27:15–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)00004-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Servan-Schreiber D, Printz H, Cohen JD (1990) A network model of catecholamine effects: gain, signal-to-noise ratio, and behavior. Science 249:892–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA (2011) Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist 17:37–53.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410386614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stevenson H, Russell PN, Helton WS (2011) Search asymmetry, sustained attention, and response inhibition. Brain Cogn 77:215–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swick D, Ashley V, Turken AU (2008) Left inferior frontal gyrus is critical for response inhibition. BMC Neurosci 9:102.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-9-102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Szabadi E, Bradshaw CM (1993) Pupillary measures as markers of drug response. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 3:317–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-977X(93)90095-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thura D, Cisek P (2016) Modulation of premotor and primary motor cortical activity during volitional adjustments of speed-accuracy trade-offs. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 36:938–956.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2230-15.2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Veen BD, van Drongelen W, Yuchtman M, Suzuki A (1997) Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44:867–880.  https://doi.org/10.1109/10.623056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Varazzani C, San-Galli A, Gilardeau S, Bouret S (2015) Noradrenaline and dopamine neurons in the reward/effort trade-off: a direct electrophysiological comparison in behaving monkeys. J Neurosci 35:7866–7877.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0454-15.2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wolff N, Mückschel M, Ziemssen T, Beste C (2018) The role of phasic norepinephrine modulations during task switching: evidence for specific effects in parietal areas. Brain Struct Funct 223:925–940.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-017-1531-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M et al (2016) A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol 127:1031–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Neurophysiology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav CarusTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, MS Centre DresdenTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations