↓ Skip to main content

Anodal and Cathodal tDCS Over the Right Frontal Eye Fields Impacts Spatial Probability Processing Differently in Pro- and Anti-saccades

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anodal and Cathodal tDCS Over the Right Frontal Eye Fields Impacts Spatial Probability Processing Differently in Pro- and Anti-saccades
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00421
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Tseng, Mu-Chen Wang, Yu-Hui Lo, Chi-Hung Juan

Abstract

Learning regularities that exist in the environment can help the visual system achieve optimal efficiency while reducing computational burden. Using a pro- and anti-saccade task, studies have shown that probabilistic information regarding spatial locations can be a strong modulator of frontal eye fields (FEF) activities and consequently alter saccadic behavior. One recent study has also shown that FEF activities can be modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation, where anodal tDCS facilitated prosaccades but cathodal tDCS prolonged antisaccades. These studies together suggest that location probability and tDCS can both alter FEF activities and oculomotor performance, yet how these two modulators interact with each other remains unclear. In this study, we applied anodal or cathodal tDCS over right FEF, and participants performed an interleaved pro- and anti-saccade task. Location probability was manipulated in prosaccade trials but not antisaccade trials. We observed that anodal tDCS over rFEF facilitated prosaccdes toward low-probability locations but not to high-probability locations; whereas cathodal tDCS facilitated antisaccades away from the high-probability location (i.e., same location as the low-probability locations in prosaccades). These observed effects were specific to rFEF as tDCS over the SEF in a separate control experiment did not yield similar patterns. These effects were also more pronounced in low-performers who had slower saccade reaction time. Together, we conclude that (1) the overlapping spatial endpoint between prosaccades (i.e., toward low-probability location) and antisaccades (i.e., away from high-probability location) possibly suggest an endpoint-selective mechanism within right FEF, (2) anodal tDCS and location probability cannot be combined to produce a bigger facilitative effect, and (3) anodal rFEF tDCS works best on low-performers who had slower saccade reaction time. These observations are consistent with the homeostasis account of tDCS effect and FEF functioning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 24%
Neuroscience 4 12%
Linguistics 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,672
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,766
of 342,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#195
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.