Blinding efficacy and adverse events following repeated transcranial alternating current, direct current, and random noise stimulation.

As transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) protocols advance, assumptions underlying the technique need to be retested to ensure they still hold. Whilst the safety of stimulation has been demonstrated mainly for a small number of sessions, and small sample size, adverse events (AEs) following multiple sessions remain largely untested. Similarly, whilst blinding procedures are typically assumed to be effective, the effect of multiple stimulation sessions on the efficacy of blinding procedures also remains under question. This is especially relevant in multisite projects where small unintentional variations in protocol could lead to inter-site difference. We report AE and blinding data from 1,019 participants who received up to 11 semi-consecutive sessions of active or sham transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), direct current stimulation (tDCS), and random noise stimulation (tRNS), at 4 sites in the UK and US. We found that AEs were often best predicted by factors other than tES, such as testing site or session number. Results from the blinding analysis suggested that blinding was less effective for tDCS and tACS than tRNS. The occurrence of AEs did not appear to be linked to tES despite the use of smaller electrodes or repeated delivery. However, blinding efficacy was impacted in tES conditions with higher cutaneous sensation, highlighting a need for alternative stimulation blinding protocols. This may be increasingly necessary in studies wishing to deliver stimulation with higher intensities

Leadership = Communication? The relations of leaders' communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between leaders' communication styles and charismatic leadership, human-oriented leadership (leader's consideration), task-oriented leadership (leader's initiating structure), and leadership outcomes. Methodology: A survey was conducted among 279 employees of a governmental organization. The following six main communication styles were operationalized: verbal aggressiveness, expressiveness, preciseness, assuredness, supportiveness, and argumentativeness. Regression analyses were employed to test three main hypotheses. Findings: In line with expectations, the study showed that charismatic and human-oriented leadership are mainly communicative, while task-oriented leadership is significantly less communicative. The communication styles were strongly and differentially related to knowledge sharing behaviors, perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate's team commitment. Multiple regression analyses showed that the leadership styles mediated the relations between the communication styles and leadership outcomes. However, leader's preciseness explained variance in perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader above and beyond the leadership style variables. Implications: This study offers potentially invaluable input for leadership training programs by showing the importance of leader's supportiveness, assuredness, and preciseness when communicating with subordinates. Originality/value: Although one of the core elements of leadership is interpersonal communication, this study is one of the first to use a comprehensive communication styles instrument in the study of leadership. © 2009 The Author(s)