Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Influence the Speed–Accuracy Tradeoff in Perceptual Decision-making: Evidence from Three Independent Studies

In perceptual decision-making tasks, people balance the speed and accuracy with which they make their decisions by modulating a response threshold. Neuroimaging studies suggest that this speed–accuracy tradeoff is implemented in a corticobasal ganglia network that includes an important contribution from the pre-SMA. To test this hypothesis, we used anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate neural activity in pre-SMA while participants performed a simple perceptual decision-making task. Participants viewed a pattern of moving dots and judged the direction of the global motion. In separate trials, they were cued to either respond quickly or accurately. We used the diffusion decision model to estimate the response threshold parameter, comparing conditions in which participants received sham or anodal tDCS. In three independent experiments, we failed to observe an influence of tDCS on the response threshold. Additional, exploratory analyses showed no influence of tDCS on the duration of nondecision processes or on the efficiency of information processing. Taken together, these findings provide a cautionary note, either concerning the causal role of pre-SMA in decision-making or on the utility of tDCS for modifying response caution in decision-making tasks.

[1]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[2]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  Wayne A. Wickelgren,et al.  Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics , 1977 .

[5]  Thomas V. Wiecki,et al.  fMRI and EEG Predictors of Dynamic Decision Parameters during Human Reinforcement Learning , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Controlling Your Impulses: Electrical Stimulation of the Human Supplementary Motor Complex Prevents Impulsive Errors , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  O. Carter,et al.  Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: A systematic review , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Partially non‐linear stimulation intensity‐dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans , 2013, The Journal of physiology.

[9]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions , 1998 .

[10]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[11]  Sven Bestmann,et al.  On the Use of Meta-analysis in Neuromodulatory Non-invasive Brain Stimulation , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[12]  Sharna Jamadar,et al.  Adjustments of Response Threshold during Task Switching: A Model-Based Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  C. Agner Oxford Handbook of Transcranial Stimulation, 1st Edition , 2008 .

[14]  R. Bogacz,et al.  The neural basis of the speed–accuracy tradeoff , 2010, Trends in Neurosciences.

[15]  C. Im,et al.  Inconsistent outcomes of transcranial direct current stimulation may originate from anatomical differences among individuals: Electric field simulation using individual MRI data , 2014, Neuroscience Letters.

[16]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  The Uncertain Outcome of Prefrontal tDCS , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[17]  Michael J. Frank,et al.  Hold your horses: A dynamic computational role for the subthalamic nucleus in decision making , 2006, Neural Networks.

[18]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  K. Hoffmann,et al.  Direct Current Stimulation over V5 Enhances Visuomotor Coordination by Improving Motion Perception in Humans , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  Men-Tzung Lo,et al.  Revealing the brain's adaptability and the transcranial direct current stimulation facilitating effect in inhibitory control by multiscale entropy , 2014, NeuroImage.

[21]  O. Carter,et al.  Quantitative Review Finds No Evidence of Cognitive Effects in Healthy Populations From Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[22]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Individual differences, aging, and IQ in two-choice tasks , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  B. Cheeran,et al.  Inter-individual Variability in Response to Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paradigms , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[24]  Anthony N. Carlsen,et al.  Anodal tDCS over SMA decreases the probability of withholding an anticipated action , 2013, Behavioural Brain Research.

[25]  Y. Kwon,et al.  Response Inhibition Induced in the Stop-signal Task by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Pre-supplementary Motor Area and Primary Sensoriomotor Cortex , 2013, Journal of physical therapy science.

[26]  Alexander Opitz,et al.  Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex , 2013, NeuroImage.

[27]  W. Newsome,et al.  A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT) , 1988, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[28]  M. Shadlen,et al.  The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[29]  J. Movshon,et al.  The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance , 1992, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[30]  M. Hallett,et al.  Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[31]  Robert L. Mason,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 2003 .

[32]  Cameron S. Carter,et al.  The Neural and Computational Basis of Controlled Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff during Task Performance , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[33]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Individual Differences and Fitting Methods for the Two-Choice Diffusion Model of Decision Making. , 2015, Decision.

[34]  J. Gold,et al.  The Influence of Behavioral Context on the Representation of a Perceptual Decision in Developing Oculomotor Commands , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  Andreas Voss,et al.  Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[36]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation , 2000, The Journal of physiology.

[37]  K. Jellinger Oxford Handbook of Transcranial Stimulation , 2009 .

[38]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  S. Rossi,et al.  Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[40]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs , 2012 .

[42]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans , 2001, Neurology.

[43]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Sequential Sampling Models in Cognitive Neuroscience: Advantages, Applications, and Extensions. , 2016, Annual review of psychology.

[44]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Bias in the Brain: A Diffusion Model Analysis of Prior Probability and Potential Payoff , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[45]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[46]  R. Ratcliff Modeling response signal and response time data , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  M. Koslowsky,et al.  tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[48]  C. Epstein,et al.  The Oxford handbook of transcranial stimulation , 2012 .

[49]  Brian E. Granger,et al.  IPython: A System for Interactive Scientific Computing , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[50]  R. Marois,et al.  fMRI Evidence for a Dual Process Account of the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Decision-Making , 2008, PloS one.

[51]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[52]  Birte U. Forstmann,et al.  Piéron’s Law and Optimal Behavior in Perceptual Decision-Making , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[53]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[54]  Walter Paulus,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation--update 2011. , 2011, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[55]  Neil G. Muggleton,et al.  Modulating inhibitory control with direct current stimulation of the superior medial frontal cortex , 2011, NeuroImage.

[56]  Birte U. Forstmann,et al.  Trial-by-trial fluctuations in CNV amplitude reflect anticipatory adjustment of response caution , 2014, NeuroImage.

[57]  Alkomiet Hasan,et al.  Efficacy and Interindividual Variability in Motor-Cortex Plasticity following Anodal tDCS and Paired-Associative Stimulation , 2015, Neural plasticity.

[58]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Neural Correlates of Trial-to-Trial Fluctuations in Response Caution , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.