Advertisement

No Effect of Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation to Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Naturalistic Prospective Memory in Healthy Young and Older Adults

  • Nathan S. RoseEmail author
  • Hannah Thomson
  • Matthias Kliegel
Support of the Null Hypothesis

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, has been shown to enhance working memory and multitasking abilities. Because of the substantial overlap in both cognitive processes (maintenance, monitoring) and neural substrates (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, DLPFC) that support both working memory and prospective memory – the ability to remember to perform intended actions at appropriate moments in the future (taking medications, turning off appliances) – we tested whether tDCS would also enhance young and older adults’ prospective memory. If tDCS enhances DLPFC activation, then it should benefit prospective memory performance, particularly for tasks that rely on controlled monitoring processes for prospective memory cue detection. Healthy young and older adults played the Virtual Week game while they received either a session of active tDCS to DLPFC and then, after at least 48 h, a session of placebo-controlled, sham stimulation, or vice versa. The Virtual Week game is a reliable measure of naturalistic prospective memory that includes assessments of five different types of prospective memory tasks that vary in cue-type (time vs. event) and task-regularity and, thus, the extent to which task performance should rely on controlled monitoring processes and DLPFC activation. Active tDCS had no effect on prospective memory performance relative to sham tDCS for either age group or any task type. In contrast, there were reliable practice effects across test sessions regardless of whether active tDCS was applied during the first or second session. A single session of tDCS to DLPFC did not enhance young or older adults’ prospective memory performance, but practice did.

Keywords

Transcranial direct current stimulation tDCS Noninvasive brain stimulation Prospective memory Aging Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex DLPFC 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the Cognition & Emotion Research Centre of ACU-Melbourne. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

HT designed the study with PGR; HT collected the young adult data; NSR collected the older adult data with the help of RV and JS; NSR and HT analyzed the data; NSR and HT wrote the manuscript, with helpful edits from MK.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Research Disclosure Statements

One older adult did not return for the second session and was thus excluded from final analysis. All independent and dependent variables, whether successful or failed, have been reported in the Method section.

Supplementary material

41465_2019_155_MOESM1_ESM.docx (420 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 419 kb)

References

  1. Bennabi, D., Pedron, S., Haffen, E., Monnin, J., Peterschmitt, Y., & Van Waes, V. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation for memory enhancement: From clinical research to animal models. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, J., Spencer, M., & Folstein, M. (1988). The telephone interview for cognitive status. Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, and Behavioral Neurology, 1(2), 111–117.Google Scholar
  3. Coffman, B. A., Clark, V. P., & Parasuraman, R. (2014). Battery powered thought: Enhancement of attention, learning, and memory in healthy adults using transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroimage, 85, 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cona, G., Bisiacchi, P. S., Sartori, G., & Scarpazza, C. (2016). Effects of cue focality on the neural mechanisms of prospective memory: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Scientific Reports, 6, 25983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cona, G., Marino, G., & Bisiacchi, P. S. (2017). Superior parietal cortex and the attention to delayed intention: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 95, 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cona, G., Scarpazza, C., Sartori, G., Moscovitch, M., & Bisiacchi, P. S. (2015). Neural bases of prospective memory: A meta-analysis and the “attention to delayed intention”(AtoDI) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 52, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, D. M., Veloria, G. K. G., Arnett, C. R., Vogel, A. E., Pitães, M., & Brewer, G. A. (under review). No evidence for enhancing prospective memory with anodal Transcranial direct current stimulation across dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement.Google Scholar
  8. Gonneaud, J., Lecouvey, G., Groussard, M., Gaubert, M., Landeau, B., Mézenge, F., et al. (2017). Functional dedifferentiation and reduced task-related deactivations underlie the age-related decline of prospective memory. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11(6), 1873–1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonneaud, J., Rauchs, G., Groussard, M., Landeau, B., Mézenge, F., de La Sayette, V., et al. (2014). How do we process event-based and time-based intentions in the brain? An fMRI study of prospective memory in healthy individuals. Human Brain Mapping, 35(7), 3066–3082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hering, A., Kliegel, M., Rendell, P. G., Craik, F. I. M., & Rose, N. S. (2018). Prospective memory is a key predictor of functional Independence in older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Google Scholar
  11. Hering, A., Rendell, P., Rose, N. S., Schnitzspahn, K., & Kliegel, M. (2014). Prospective memory training in older adults and its relevance for successful aging. Psychological Research, 6, 892–904.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0566-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horvath, J. C., Forte, J. D., & Carter, O. (2015). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation, 8(3), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mancuso, L. E., Ilieva, I. P., Hamilton, R. H., & Farah, M. J. (2016). Does transcranial direct current stimulation improve healthy working memory?: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(8), 1063–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2011). The neuropsychology of prospective memory in normal aging: A componential approach. Neuropsychologia, 49(8), 2147–2155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McDaniel, M. A., LaMontagne, P., Beck, S. M., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2013). Dissociable neural routes to successful prospective memory. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1791–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McDaniel, M. A., Umanath, S., Einstein, G. O., & Waldum, E. R. (2015). Dual pathways to prospective remembering. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Minarik, T., Berger, B., Althaus, L., Bader, V., Biebl, B., Brotzeller, F., et al. (2016). The importance of sample size for reproducibility of tDCS effects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10.Google Scholar
  18. Mioni, G., Rendell, P. G., Henry, J. D., Cantagallo, A., & Stablum, F. (2013). An investigation of prospective memory functions in people with traumatic brain injury using virtual week. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35(6), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson, J., McKinley, R. A., Phillips, C., McIntire, L., Goodyear, C., Kreiner, A., & Monforton, L. (2016). The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on multitasking throughput capacity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peira, N., Ziaei, M., & Persson, J. (2016). Age differences in brain systems supporting transient and sustained processes involved in prospective memory and working memory. NeuroImage, 125, 745–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips, L. H., Henry, J. D., & Martin, M. (2008). Adult aging and prospective memory: The importance of ecological validity.Google Scholar
  22. Piau, A., Campo, E., Rumeau, P., Vellas, B., & Nourhashemi, F. (2014). Aging society and gerontechnology: A solution for an independent living? The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 18(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rendell, P. G., & Craik, F. I. (2000). Virtual week and actual week: Age-related differences in prospective memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7).Google Scholar
  24. Rendell, P. G., & Henry, J. D. (2009). A review of virtual week for prospective memory assessment: Clinical implications. Brain impairment, 10(1), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robison, M. K., McGuirk, W. P., & Unsworth, N. (2017). No evidence for enhancements to visual working memory with transcranial direct current stimulation to prefrontal or posterior parietal cortices. Behavioral Neuroscience, 131(4), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose, N. S., Luo, L., Bialystok, E., Hering, A., Lau, K., & Craik, F. I. (2015a). Cognitive processes in the breakfast task: Planning and monitoring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 69(3), 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose, N. S., Rendell, P. G., Hering, A., Kliegel, M., Bidelman, G. M., & Craik, F. I. (2015b). Cognitive and neural plasticity in older adults’ prospective memory following training with the virtual week computer game. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9.Google Scholar
  28. Rose, N. S., Rendell, P. G., McDaniel, M. A., Aberle, I., & Kliegel, M. (2010). Age and individual differences in prospective memory during a" virtual week": The roles of working memory, vigilance, task regularity, and cue focality. Psychology and Aging, 25(3), 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Shelton, J. T. (2013). The dynamic multiprocess framework: Evidence from prospective memory with contextual variability. Cognitive Psychology, 67(1–2), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stephens, J. A., & Berryhill, M. E. (2016). Older adults improve on everyday tasks after working memory training and neurostimulation. Brain Stimulation, 9(4), 553–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Terrett, G., Rose, N. S., Henry, J. D., Bailey, P. E., Altgassen, M., Phillips, L. H., et al. (2016). The relationship between prospective memory and episodic future thinking in younger and older adulthood. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(2), 310–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Underwood, E. (2016). Cadaver study challenges brain stimulation methods. Science, 352, 397.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6284.397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.ACU MelbourneFitzroyAustralia
  3. 3.Université de GenèveGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations