Notes – PRISM lab meeting, Chris

How do we make tDCS more effective?

Galea – during visuomotor adaptation task, cerebellar tDCS leads to faster acquisition, while M1 stim leads to better retention. A clear double dissociation that highlights distinct roles of the two structures during motor learning.

Pope – subtraction vs addition dual tasks. Subtraction the harder task and tDCS was only effective during subtraction task. High difficulty might be needed for effective stimulation, maybe due to ability to compensate with other brain regions if not occupied by more demanding task…

Asynchronous stim (stimulation when not moving) works slightly better than synchronous stim (stimulation applied during movement), but both work (better than sham and even continuous).

ER-tDCS (event related tDCS) – early data suggests stim during high error trials leads to more learning than baseline. Flatline learning in stim during low error trials condition.

What’s the bridge between asynchronous stimulation and ER? Why might they have similar effects? The ER paradigm was adaptive so same amount stim occurred for high error as for low error .

Might be evidence for importance of error in learning – e.g. Palidis: during reward based learning and sensory-feedback based learning, P300 amplitude predicted size of error. Reminded me of this paper by Camilla Pierella – motor learning comes from errors and inputs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s