Prefrontal electrical stimulation in non-depressed reduces levels of reported negative affects from daily stressors

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and sporting performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS effects on physical endurance, muscular strength, and visuomotor skills

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has been linked with a range of physiological and cognitive enhancements relevant to sporting performance. As a number of positive and null findings have been reported in the literature, the present meta-analysis sought to synthesise results across endurance, strength, and visuomotor skill domains to investigate if tDCS improves any aspect of sporting performance. Online database searches in August 2020 identified 43 full-text studies which examined the acute effects of tDCS compared to sham/control conditions on physical endurance, muscular strength, and visuomotor skills in healthy adults. Meta-analysis indicated a small overall effect favouring tDCS stimulation over sham/control (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.25, CI95%[0.14;0.36]). Effects on strength (SMD=0.31, CI95%[0.10;0.51]) and visuomotor (SMD=0.29, CI95%[0.00;0.57]) tasks were larger than endurance performance (SMD=0.18, CI95%[0.00;0.37]). Meta-regressions indicated effect sizes were not related to stimulation parameters, but other factors such as genetics, gender, and experience may modulate tDCS effects. The results suggest tDCS has the potential to be used as an ergogenic aid in conjunction with a specified training regime.

Acceptability of Neuroscientific Interventions in Education

Researchers are increasingly applying neuroscience technologies that probe or manipulate the brain to improve educational outcomes. However, their use remains fraught with ethical controversies. Here, we investigate the acceptability of neuroscience applications to educational practice in two groups of young adults: those studying bioscience who will be driving future basic neuroscience research and technology transfer, and those studying education who will be choosing among neuroscience-derived applications for their students. Respondents rated the acceptability of six scenarios describing neuroscience applications to education spanning multiple methodologies, from neuroimaging to neuroactive drugs to brain stimulation. They did so from two perspectives (student, teacher) and for three recipient populations (low-achieving, high-achieving students, students with learning disabilities). Overall, the biosciences students were more favorable to all neuroscience applications than the education students. Scenarios that measured brain activity (i.e., EEG or fMRI) to assess or predict intellectual abilities were deemed more acceptable than manipulations of mental activity by drug use or stimulation techniques, which may violate body integrity. Enhancement up to the norm for low-achieving students and especially students with learning disabilities was more favorably viewed than enhancement beyond the norm for high-achieving students. Finally, respondents rated neuroscientific applications to be less acceptable when adopting the perspective of a teacher than that of a student. Future studies should go beyond the acceptability ratings collected here to delineate the role that concepts of access, equity, authenticity, agency and personal choice play in guiding respondents' reasoning.

Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement: The Role of Metaphor and Context

The widespread use of stimulants among healthy individuals to improve cognition has received growing attention; however, public attitudes toward this practice are not well understood. We determined the effect of framing metaphors and context of use on public opinion toward cognitive enhancement. We recruited 3,727 participants from the United States to complete three surveys using Amazon's Mechanical Turk between April and July 2017. Participants read vignettes describing an individual using cognitive enhancement, varying framing metaphors (fuel versus steroid), and context of use (athletes versus students versus employees). The main outcome measure was the difference in respondent-assigned level of acceptability of the use of cognitive enhancement by others and by themselves between the contrasting vignettes. Participants were more likely to support the use of cognitive enhancement by others than by themselves and more when the use of enhancement by others was framed with a fuel metaphor than with a steroid metaphor. Metaphoric framing did not affect participants' attitudes toward their own use. Participants supported the use of enhancement by employees more than by students or athletes. These results are discussed in relation to existing ethical and policy literature.