Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates affective flexibility

To be or not to be flexible: A hierarchical model of affective flexibility in typical development and internalizing problems

Affective flexibility is defined as a complex executive function which enables individuals to successfully alternate between distinct emotional and non-emotional features of a given situation in order to attain a specific goal. A large body of research has focused exclusively on flexibility in a non-emotional context, although most of our interactions with our environment are emotionally satiated. Our main aim was to propose a hierarchical framework to describe this construct from a macro-level perspective to a more nuanced and micro-level perspective, including three different levels of affective flexibility: elementary, shifting, and generative. Next, we employed this hierarchical framework to examine the role played by affective flexibility in typical development and different forms of developmental psychopathology. Lastly, we discuss how this knowledge could inform future prevention and intervention programs aimed at reducing cognitive vulnerability to developmental psychopathology.

The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on the Cognitive Functions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Previous studies have investigated the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive functions. However, these studies reported inconsistent results due to differences in experiment design, measurements, and stimulation parameters. Nonetheless, there is a lack of meta-analyses and review studies on tDCS and its impact on cognitive functions, including working memory, inhibition, flexibility, and theory of mind. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS studies published from the earliest available data up to October 2021, including studies reporting the effects of tDCS on cognitive functions in human populations. Therefore, these systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively analyze the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS on cognitive functions by investigating 69 articles with a total of 5545 participants. Our study reveals significant anodal tDCS effects on various cognitive functions. Specifically, we observed improvements in working memory reaction time (RT), inhibition RT, flexibility RT, theory of mind RT, working memory accuracy, theory of mind accuracy and flexibility accuracy. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate noteworthy cathodal tDCS effects, enhancing working memory accuracy, inhibition accuracy, flexibility RT, flexibility accuracy, theory of mind RT, and theory of mind accuracy. Notably, regarding the influence of stimulation parameters of tDCS on cognitive functions, the results indicated significant differences across various aspects, including the timing of stimulation (online vs. offline studies), population type (clinical vs. healthy studies), stimulation duration (< 15 min vs. > 15 min), electrical current intensities (1-1.5 m.A vs. > 1.5 m.A), stimulation sites (right frontal vs. left frontal studies), age groups (young vs. older studies), and different cognitive tasks in each cognitive functioning aspect. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that tDCS can effectively enhance cognitive task performance, offering valuable insights into the potential benefits of this method for cognitive improvement.

Individual differences in resilience to stress are associated with affective flexibility

Cognitive flexibility is frequently linked to resilience because of its important contribution to stress regulation. In this context, particularly affective flexibility, defined as the ability to flexibly attend and disengage from affective information, may play a significant role. In the present study, the relationship of cognitive and affective flexibility and resilience was examined in 100 healthy participants. Resilience was measured with three self-report questionnaires, two defining resilience as a personality trait and one focusing on resilience as an outcome in the sense of stress coping abilities. Cognitive and affective flexibility were assessed in two experimental task switching paradigms with non-affective and affective materials and tasks, respectively. The cognitive flexibility paradigm additionally included measures of cognitive stability and spontaneous switching in ambiguous situations. In the affective flexibility paradigm, we explicitly considered the affective valence of the stimuli. Response time switch costs in the affective flexibility paradigm were significantly correlated to all three measures of resilience. The correlation was not specific for particular valences of the stimuli before or during switching. For cognitive (non-affective) flexibility, a significant correlation of response time switch costs was found with only one resilience measure. A regression analysis including both affective and cognitive switch costs as predictors of resilience indicated that only affective, but not cognitive switch costs, explained unique variance components. Furthermore, the experimental measures of cognitive stability and the rate of spontaneous switching in ambiguous situations did not correlate with resilience scores. These findings suggest that specifically the efficiency of flexibly switching between affective and non-affective information is related to resilience.

Distract or Reappraise? The Mechanism of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Choice and Its Influential Factors

Previous research on emotion regulation has focused more on the regulation effects corresponding to a particular emotion regulation strategy, yet the same regulation strategy may produce different regulation effects in different contexts. Similarly, one regulation strategy may not be applicable to all situations. Emotion regulation choice refers to the process by which individuals choose different regulation strategies in different contexts. Executive control and the level of engagement-disengagement considerations are the cognitive mechanisms of emotion regulation choice, while the neural mechanisms of emotion regulation choice still need to be explored more directly and deeply. Studies have found that affective, cognitive, and motivational factors have different degrees of influence on emotion regulation choice. However, there is still a lack of a reliable framework to systematically investigate the relationship between these influences and the outcome of their combined effect on emotion regulation choices. Future research needs to further explore the neurophysiological basis of emotion regulation choice by using different techniques and constructing a complete model based on multiple factors to more accurately grasp the dynamic process of emotion regulation choice.

Improving Emotion Regulation Through Real-Time Neurofeedback Training on the Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Evidence From Behavioral and Brain Network Analyses

We investigated if emotion regulation can be improved through self-regulation training on non-emotional brain regions, as well as how to change the brain networks implicated in this process. During the training period, the participants were instructed to up-regulate their right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC) activity according to real-time functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) neurofeedback signals, and there was no emotional element. The results showed that the training significantly increased emotion regulation, resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) within the emotion regulation network (ERN) and frontoparietal network (FPN), and rsFC between the ERN and amygdala; however, training did not influence the rsFC between the FPN and the amygdala. However, self-regulation training on rDLPFC significantly improved emotion regulation and generally increased the rsFCs within the networks; the rsFC between the ERN and amygdala was also selectively increased. The present study also described a safe approach that may improve emotion regulation through self-regulation training on non-emotional brain regions.

Delayed reconfiguration of a non-emotional task set through reactivation of an emotional task set in task switching: an ageing study

In our everyday life, we frequently switch between different tasks, a faculty that changes with age. However, it is still not understood how emotion impacts on age-related changes in task switching. Using faces with emotional and neutral expressions, Experiment 1 investigated younger (n = 29; 18-38 years old) and older adults' (n = 32; 61-80 years old) ability to switch between an emotional and a non-emotional task (i.e. responding to the face's expression vs. age). In Experiment 2, younger and older adults also viewed emotional and neutral faces, but switched between two non-emotional tasks (i.e. responding to the face's age vs. gender). Data from Experiment 1 demonstrated that switching from an emotional to a non-emotional task was slower when the expression of the new face was emotional rather than neutral. This impairment was observed in both age groups. In contrast, Experiment 2 revealed that neither younger nor older adults were affected by block-wise irrelevant emotion when switching between two non-emotional tasks. Overall, the findings suggest that task-irrelevant emotion can impair task switching through reactivation of the competing emotional task set. They also suggest that this effect and the ability to shield task-switching performance from block-wise irrelevant emotion are preserved in ageing.

Catecholaminergic modulation of indices of cognitive flexibility: A pharmaco-tDCS study

BACKGROUND

Dopaminergic activity within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) has been implicated in the control of cognitive flexibility. Much of the evidence for a causative relationship between cognitive flexibility and dopamine has come from animal studies, whilst human data have largely been correlational.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

The current study examines whether changes in dopamine levels through tyrosine administration and suppression of dlPFC activity via cathodal tDCS could be causally related to cognitive flexibility as measured by task switching and reversal learning.

METHODS

Using a crossover, double-blind, sham controlled, counterbalanced, randomized trial, we tested the effects of combining cathodal tDCS with tyrosine, a catecholaminergic precursor, with appropriate drug and tDCS placebo controls, on two measures of cognitive flexibility: probabilistic reversal learning, and task switching.

RESULTS

While none of the manipulations had an effect on task switching, there was a significant main effect of cathodal tDCS and tyrosine on reversal learning. Reversal learning performance was significantly worsened by cathodal tDCS compared with sham tDCS, whilst tyrosine significantly improved performance compared with placebo. However, there was no significant tDCS × drugs interaction. Interestingly, and as predicted by our model, the combined administration of tyrosine with cathodal tDCS resulted in performance that was equivalent to the control condition (i.e. tDCS sham + placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a causative role for dopamine signalling and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity in regulating indices of cognitive flexibility in humans.

Effects of prefrontal tDCS on executive function: Methodological considerations revealed by meta-analysis

A meta-analysis of studies using single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was undertaken to examine the effect of stimulation on executive function (EF) in healthy samples. 27 studies were included in analyses, yielding 71 effect sizes. The most relevant measure for each task was determined a priori and used to calculate Hedge's g. Methodological characteristics of each study were examined individually as potential moderators of effect size. Stimulation effects on three domains of EF (inhibition of prepotent responses, mental set shifting, and information updating and monitoring) were analyzed separately. In line with previous work, the current study found no significant effect of anodal unilateral tDCS, cathodal unilateral tDCS, or bilateral tDCS on EF. Further moderator and subgroup analyses were only carried out for anodal unilateral montages due to the small number of studies using other montages. Subgroup analyses revealed a significant effect of anodal unilateral tDCS on updating tasks, but not on inhibition or set-shifting tasks. Cathode location significantly moderated the effect of anodal unilateral tDCS. Extracranial cathodes yielded a significant effect on EF while cranial cathodes yielded no effect. Anode size also significantly moderated effect of anodal unilateral tDCS, with smaller anodes being more effective than larger anodes. In summary, anodal DLPFC stimulation is more effective at improving updating ability than inhibition and set-shifting ability, but anodal stimulation can significantly improve general executive function when extracranial cathodes or small anodes are used. Future meta-analyses may examine how stimulation's effects on specific behavioral tasks, rather than broader domains, might be affected by methodological moderators.