Modulation of Working Memory Using Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: A Direct Comparison Between TACS and TDCS

Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) has been considered a promising tool for improving working memory (WM) performance. Recent studies have demonstrated modulation of networks underpinning WM processing through application of transcranial alternating current (TACS) as well as direct current (TDCS) stimulation. Differences between study designs have limited direct comparison of the efficacy of these approaches, however. Here we directly compared the effects of theta TACS (6 Hz) and anodal TDCS on WM, applying TACS to the frontal-parietal loop and TDCS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). WM was evaluated using a visual 2-back WM task. A within-subject, crossover design was applied (N = 30) in three separate sessions. TACS, TDCS, and sham stimulation were administered in a counterbalanced order, and the WM task was performed before, during, and after stimulation. Neither reaction times for hits (RT-hit) nor accuracy differed according to stimulation type with this study design. A marked practice effect was noted, however, with improvement in RT-hit irrespective of stimulation type, which peaked at the end of the second session. Pre-stimulation RT-hits in session three returned to the level observed pre-stimulation in session two, irrespective of stimulation type. The participants who received sham stimulation in session one and had therefore improved their performance due to practice alone, had thus reached a plateau by session two, enabling us to pool RT-hits from sessions two and three for these participants. The pooling allowed implementation of a within-subject crossover study design, with a direct comparison of the effects of TACS and TDCS in a subgroup of participants (N = 10), each of whom received both stimulation types, in a counterbalanced order, with pre-stimulation performance the same for both sessions. TACS resulted in a greater improvement in RT-hits than TDCS (F(2,18) = 4.31 p = 0.03). Our findings suggest that future work optimizing the application of TACS has the potential to facilitate WM performance

Modulation of Working Memory Using Transcranial Electrical Stimulation: A Direct Comparison Between TACS and TDCS

Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) has been considered a promising tool for improving working memory (WM) performance. Recent studies have demonstrated modulation of networks underpinning WM processing through application of transcranial alternating current (TACS) as well as direct current (TDCS) stimulation. Differences between study designs have limited direct comparison of the efficacy of these approaches, however. Here we directly compared the effects of theta TACS (6 Hz) and anodal TDCS on WM, applying TACS to the frontal-parietal loop and TDCS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). WM was evaluated using a visual 2-back WM task. A within-subject, crossover design was applied (N = 30) in three separate sessions. TACS, TDCS, and sham stimulation were administered in a counterbalanced order, and the WM task was performed before, during, and after stimulation. Neither reaction times for hits (RT-hit) nor accuracy differed according to stimulation type with this study design. A marked practice effect was noted, however, with improvement in RT-hit irrespective of stimulation type, which peaked at the end of the second session. Pre-stimulation RT-hits in session three returned to the level observed pre-stimulation in session two, irrespective of stimulation type. The participants who received sham stimulation in session one and had therefore improved their performance due to practice alone, had thus reached a plateau by session two, enabling us to pool RT-hits from sessions two and three for these participants. The pooling allowed implementation of a within-subject crossover study design, with a direct comparison of the effects of TACS and TDCS in a subgroup of participants (N = 10), each of whom received both stimulation types, in a counterbalanced order, with pre-stimulation performance the same for both sessions. TACS resulted in a greater improvement in RT-hits than TDCS (F(2,18) = 4.31 p = 0.03). Our findings suggest that future work optimizing the application of TACS has the potential to facilitate WM performance

Non-invasive physical plasma for preventing radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: Results from an intrapatient-randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background and Purpose: To investigate the effect of topical non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP), a volatile mix generated out of ambient air, on prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) during and after whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Materials and Methods: Lateral and medial breast halves were randomised within each patient to receive either 120 s of NIPP or sham treatment daily during WBI. Standard skin care with urea lotion was applied to the whole breast. Blinded acute skin toxicity was assessed weekly for each breast half separately and included clinician- (CTCAE) and patient-reported (modified RISRAS), and objective (spectrophotometry) assessments. As an additional external control, a comparable standard of care (SoC) patient collective from a previous prospective trial was used. Results: Sixty-four patients were included. There were no significant differences between breast halves. Post-hoc comparison with a similar SoC control collective revealed OR = 0.28 (95% CI 0.11–0.76; p = 0.014) for grade ≥ 2 RD upon WBI completion, along with less hyperpigmentation (p < 0.001), oedema (p = 0.020), dry (p < 0.001) and moist desquamation (p = 0.017), pain, itching, and burning (p < 0.001 for each). Tolerability of NIPP was excellent and side effects were not observed. Conclusion: Even though there were no differences between intrapatient-randomised breast halves, the overall incidence and severity of acute radiation-induced skin toxicity were considerably lower when compared to a prospectively collected SoC cohort. Our data suggest the potential benefit of NIPP in RD prevention. A randomised trial with a physical control group is warranted to confirm these promising results (DRKS00026225)