Placebo Intervention Enhances Reward Learning in Healthy Individuals

Uncertainty of treatment efficacy moderates placebo effects on reinforcement learning

The placebo-reward hypothesis postulates that positive effects of treatment expectations on health (i.e., placebo effects) and reward processing share common neural underpinnings. Moreover, experiments in humans and animals indicate that reward uncertainty increases striatal dopamine, which is presumably involved in placebo responses and reward learning. Therefore, treatment uncertainty analogously to reward uncertainty may affect updating from rewards after placebo treatment. Here, we address whether different degrees of uncertainty regarding the efficacy of a sham treatment affect reward sensitivity. In an online between-subjects experiment with N = 141 participants, we systematically varied the provided efficacy instructions before participants first received a sham treatment that consisted of listening to binaural beats and then performed a probabilistic reinforcement learning task. We fitted a Q-learning model including two different learning rates for positive (gain) and negative (loss) reward prediction errors and an inverse gain parameter to behavioral decision data in the reinforcement learning task. Our results yielded an inverted-U-relationship between provided treatment efficacy probability and learning rates for gain, such that higher levels of treatment uncertainty, rather than of expected net efficacy, affect presumably dopamine-related reward learning. These findings support the placebo-reward hypothesis and suggest harnessing uncertainty in placebo treatment for recovering reward learning capabilities.

Can placebo or nocebo pills improve or impair cognition performance?

OBJECTIVE

Although the placebo effect is well known to affect many behaviors, the effects on cognitive performance are less well investigated.

METHODS

In this study, the effects of a placebo and a nocebo manipulation on cognitive performance was investigated in healthy young participants in an unblinded between-subjects study. In addition, the participants were asked about their subjective experience in the placebo and nocebo condition.

RESULTS

The data suggested that the placebo condition induced the feeling of being more attentive and more motivated and the nocebo condition induced a feeling of being less attentive and alert and that they performed less well than normal. However, no placebo or nocebo effects were found on the actual performance on word learning, working memory, Tower of London task, or spatial pattern separation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings further support the notion that placebo or nocebo effects are not likely to occur in young healthy volunteers. However, other studies suggest that placebo effects can be found in implicit memory tasks and in participants with memory problems. Further placebo/nocebo studies are indicated using different experimental designs and different populations in order to better understand the placebo effect on cognitive performance.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement

Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans. Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject's age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be "safe" where they are applying stimulation beyond that examined in published studies that also investigated potential side effects. Brain stimulation devices marketed for consumer use are distinct from medical devices because they do not make medical claims and are therefore not necessarily subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices (i.e., by government agencies tasked with regulating medical devices). Manufacturers must follow ethical and best practices in marketing tES stimulators, including not misleading users by referencing effects from human trials using devices and protocols not similar to theirs.

Mind-wandering: mechanistic insights from lesion, tDCS, and iEEG

Cognitive neuroscience has witnessed a surge of interest in investigating the neural correlates of the mind when it drifts away from an ongoing task and the external environment. To that end, functional neuroimaging research has consistently implicated the default mode network (DMN) and frontoparietal control network (FPCN) in mind-wandering. Yet, it remains unknown which subregions within these networks are necessary and how they facilitate mind-wandering. In this review, we synthesize evidence from lesion, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and intracranial electroencephalogram (iEEG) studies demonstrating the causal relevance of brain regions, and providing insights into the neuronal mechanism underlying mind-wandering. We propose that the integration of complementary approaches is the optimal strategy to establish a comprehensive understanding of the neural basis of mind-wandering.

"Placebo by Proxy" and "Nocebo by Proxy" in Children: A Review of Parents' Role in Treatment Outcomes

The "placebo (effect) by proxy" (PbP) concept, introduced by Grelotti and Kaptchuk (1), describes a positive effect of a patient's treatment on persons in their surrounding such as family members or healthcare providers, who feel better because the patient is being treated. The PbP effect is a complex dynamic phenomenon which attempts to explain a change in treatment outcome arising from an interaction between a patient and an effect from proxies such as parents, caregivers, physicians or even the media. By extension the effect of the proxy can also have a negative or adverse effect whereby a proxy feels worse when a patient is treated, giving rise to the possibility of a "nocebo (effect) by proxy" (NbP), and by extension can influence a patient's treatment response. While this has yet to be systematically investigated, such an effect could occur when a proxy observes that a treatment is ineffective or is perceived as causing adverse effects leading the patient to experience side effects. In this narrative review, we take these definitions one step further to include the impact of PbP/NbP as they transform to affect the treatment outcome for the patient or child being treated, not just the people surrounding the individual being treated. Following a systematic search of literature on the subject using the Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) database (https://jips.online) and PubMed (NCBI) resulted in very few relevant studies, especially in children. The effect of PbP per se has been studied in parents and their children for temper tantrums, acupuncture for postoperative symptoms, as well as for neuroprotection in very preterm-born infants. This paper will review the PbP/NbP concepts, show evidence for its presence in children's treatment outcome and introduce clinical implications. We will also offer suggestions for future research to further our understanding of the role of the proxy in promoting or distracting from treatment benefit in children. Increasing an appreciation of the PbP and NbP phenomena and the role of the proxy in children's treatment should improve research study design and ultimately harness them to improve clinical child healthcare.

Investigating the effects of tDCS on Visual Orientation Discrimination Task Performance: 'The possible influence of placebo'

The non-invasive neuromodulation technique tDCS offers the promise of a low cost tool for both research and clinical applications in psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. However, findings regarding its efficacy are often equivocal. A key issue is that the clinical and cognitive applications studied are often complex and thus effects of tDCS are difficult to predict given its known effects on the basic underlying neurophysiology, namely alterations in cortical inhibition-excitation balance. As such, it may be beneficial to assess the effects of tDCS in tasks whose performance has a clear link to cortical inhibition-excitation balance such as the visual orientation discrimination task (ODT). In prior studies in our laboratory no practise effects were found during 2 consecutive runs of the ODT, thus in the current investigation, to examine the effects of tDCS, subjects received 10 minutes of 2mA occipital tDCS (sham, anode, cathode) between a first and second run of ODT. Surprisingly, subjects' performance significantly improved in the second run of ODT compared to the first one regardless of the tDCS stimulation type they received (anodal, cathodal, or sham-tDCS). Possible causes for such an improvement could have been due to either a generic 'placebo' effect of tDCS (as all subjects received some form of tDCS) or an increased delay period between the two runs of ODT of the current study compared to our previous work (10 minutes duration required to administer tDCS as opposed to ~2 minutes in previous studies as a 'break'). As such, we tested these two possibilities with a subsequent experiment in which subjects received 2 minutes or 10 minutes delay between the 2 runs (with no tDCS) or 10 minutes of sham-tDCS. Only sham-tDCS resulted in improved performance thus these data add to a growing literature suggesting that tDCS has powerful placebo effect that may occur even in the absence of active cortical modulation.

Efficacy of tRNS and 140 Hz tACS on motor cortex excitability seemingly dependent on sensitivity to sham stimulation

This study investigates the effect of corticospinal excitability during sham stimulation on the individual response to transcranial non-invasive brain stimulation (tNIBS). Thirty healthy young adults aged 24.2 ± 2.8 S.D. participated in the study. Sham, as well as 1 mA of tRNS and 140 Hz tACS stimulation were applied for 10 min each at different sessions. The effect of each stimulation type was quantified by recording TMS-induced, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) before (baseline) and at fixed time points after stimulation (T0, T30, T60 min.). According to the individual response to sham stimulation at T0 in comparison to baseline MEPs, subjects were regarded as responder or non-responder to sham. Following, MEPs at T0, T30 and T60 after verum or sham stimulation were assessed with a repeated measures ANOVA with the within-subject factor stimulation (sham, tRNS, 140 Hz tACS) and the between-subjects factor group (responder vs non-responder). We found that individuals who did not show immediately changes in excitability in sham stimulation sessions were the ones who responded to active stimulation conditions. On the other hand, individuals who responded to sham condition, by either increases or decreases in MEPS, did not respond to active verum stimulation. This result suggests that the presence or lack of responses to sham stimulation can provide a marker for how individuals will respond to tRNS/tACS and thus provide an explanation for the variability in interindividual response. The results of this study draw attention to the general reactivity of the brain, which can be taken into account when planning future studies using tNIBS.

Combining reward and M1 transcranial direct current stimulation enhances the retention of newly learnt sensorimotor mappings

Background

Reward-based feedback given during motor learning has been shown to improve the retention of the behaviour being acquired. Interestingly, applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during learning over the primary motor cortex (M1), an area associated with motor retention, also results in enhanced retention of the newly formed motor memories. However, it remains unknown whether combining these distinct interventions result in an additive benefit of motor retention.

Methods

We investigated whether combining both interventions while participants learned to account for a visuomotor transformation results in enhanced motor retention (total n = 56; each group n = 14). To determine whether these interventions share common physiological mechanisms underpinning learning, we assessed motor cortical excitability and inhibition (i.e. SICI) on a hand muscle before and after all participants learned the visuomotor rotation using their entire arm and hand.

Results

We found that both the Reward-Stim (i.e. reward + tDCS) and Reward-Sham (i.e. reward-only) groups had increased retention at the beginning of the retention phase, indicating an immediate effect of reward on behaviour. However, each intervention on their own did not enhance retention when compared to sham, but rather, only the combination of both reward and tDCS demonstrated prolonged retention. We also found that only the Reward-Stim group had a significant reduction in SICI after exposure to the perturbation.

Conclusions

We show that combining both interventions are additive in providing stronger retention of motor adaptation. These results indicate that the reliability and validity of using tDCS within a clinical context may depend on the type of feedback individuals receive when learning a new motor pattern.

•

Concurrently administering reward and M1 tDCS during learning results in enhanced motor retention.

•

The combination of these interventions also leads to a reduction in M1 inhibitory mechanisms.

•

No benefits of motor retention were found when reward or M1 tDCS were given alone.

Placebo- and Nocebo-Effects in Cognitive Neuroenhancement: When Expectation Shapes Perception

Objective: The number of students using prescription drugs to improve cognitive performance has increased within the last years. There is first evidence that the expectation to receive a performance-enhancing drug alone can result in improved perceived and actual cognitive performance, suggesting a substantial placebo effect. In addition, expecting a placebo can result in lower perceived and actual cognitive performance, suggesting a nocebo effect. Yet, the underlying mechanisms of these effects remain to be elucidated. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the expectation of receiving a performance-increasing drug or a performance-impairing drug leads to changes in actual and perceived cognitive performance, compared to a control group without expectation manipulation. Methods: A total of N = 75 healthy adults were recruited for an experiment to "try cognitive performance-modulating drugs." A participant's actual cognitive performance (alertness, working memory, sustained attention, and divided attention) using the standardized test of attentional performance (TAP) as well as their performance expectation were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned in equal numbers to either receiving a placebo performance increasing nasal spray ("Modafinil") or a nocebo performance impairing nasal spray ("Vividrin^®") or no nasal spray (natural history). After placebo/nocebo nasal spray administration, cognitive performance was reassessed. Subsequent to the second assessment, participants rated their perceived change in cognitive performance, as well as adverse symptoms. Results: Unlike hypothesized, a positive or negative performance expectation did not result in changes in actual performance, corresponding to the induced expectation. Participants in the placebo-Modafinil group rated their perceived change in cognitive performance subsequent to the application of the nasal spray significantly better (d = 1.16) compared to the nocebo-Vividrin^® group. Additionally, participants who expected to receive Modafinil felt less tired than participants in the Vividrin^® group (d = 0.96). Conclusion: Manipulation of performance expectation affects the perceived change in performance and tiredness, but not the actual cognitive performance in healthy adults. This may explain why college students use such drugs despite their little impact on actual cognitive functioning.

Evidence for Cognitive Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Healthy Individuals

Inactive interventions can have significant effects on cognitive performance. Understanding the generation of these cognitive placebo/nocebo effects is crucial for evaluating the cognitive impacts of interventional methods, such as non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). We report both cognitive placebo and nocebo effects on reward-based learning performance induced using an active sham NIBS protocol, verbal suggestions and conditioning in 80 healthy participants. Whereas our placebo manipulation increased both expected and perceived cognitive performance, nocebo had a detrimental effect on both. Model-based analysis suggests manipulation-specific strategic adjustments in learning-rates: Participants in the placebo group showed stronger learning from losses and reduced behavioral noise, participants in the nocebo group showed stronger learning from gains and increased behavioral noise. We conclude that experimentally induced expectancy can impact cognitive functions of healthy adult participants. This has important implications for the use of double-blind study designs that can effectively maintain blinding in NIBS studies.

Putting focus on transcranial direct current stimulation in language production studies

Previous language production studies targeting the inferior frontal and superior temporal gyrus using anodal tDCS have provided mixed results. Part of this heterogeneity may be explained by limited target region focality of conventionally used electrode montages. We examined the focality of conventionally and alternative electrode montages. Electrical field distributions of anodal tDCS targeting IFG and pSTG were simulated in conventional setups (anodal electrode over left IFG/pSTG, reference electrode over right supraorbital region) and an alternative electrode montage in four different brains. Conventional montages showed maximum field strengths outside of the target regions. Results from alternative electrode montages showed that focality of tDCS could be improved by adjustments in electrode placement. Heterogeneity of findings of language production studies deploying conventional montages may in part be explained by diffuse electrical field distributions. Alternative montages may improve focality and provide more unequivocal results.

Is the rationale more important than deception? A randomized controlled trial of open-label placebo analgesia

Research on open-label placebos questions whether deception is a necessary characteristic of placebo effects. Yet, comparisons between open-label and deceptive placebos (DPs) are lacking. We therefore assessed effects of open-label placebos and DPs in comparison with no treatment (NT) with a standardized experimental heat pain paradigm in a randomized controlled trial in healthy participants. Participants (N = 160) were randomly assigned to NT, open-label placebo without rationale (OPR-), open-label placebo with rationale (OPR), and DP. We conducted baseline and posttreatment measurements of heat pain threshold and tolerance. Apart from the NT, all groups received an application of a placebo cream. Primary outcomes were planned comparisons of heat pain tolerance and the corresponding intensity and unpleasantness ratings. Objective posttreatment pain tolerance did not differ among groups. However, for subjective heat pain ratings at the posttreatment tolerance level, groups with a rationale (OPR and DP) reported diminished heat pain intensity (t(146) = -2.15, P = 0.033, d = 0.43) and unpleasantness ratings (t(146) = -2.43, P = 0.016, d = 0.49) compared with the OPR-group. Interestingly, the OPR and the DP groups did not significantly differ in heat pain intensity (t(146) = -1.10, P = 0.272) or unpleasantness ratings (t(146) = -0.05, P = 0.961) at the posttreatment tolerance level. Our findings reveal that placebos with a plausible rationale are more effective than without a rationale. Even more, open-label placebos did not significantly differ in their effects from DPs. Therefore, we question the ubiquitously assumed necessity of concealment in placebo administration.