Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 3;17(1):131-141.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa066.

Mind the social feedback: effects of tDCS applied to the left DLPFC on psychophysiological responses during the anticipation and reception of social evaluations

Jens Allaert  1   2   3 , Rudi De Raedt  3 , Alvaro Sanchez-Lopez  4 , Chris Baeken  1   2   3   5 , Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt  1   2   3
Affiliations

Mind the social feedback: effects of tDCS applied to the left DLPFC on psychophysiological responses during the anticipation and reception of social evaluations

Jens Allaert et al. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. .

Abstract

The left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) is implicated in anticipatory (i.e. during anticipation of emotional stimuli) and online (i.e. during confrontation with emotional stimuli) emotion regulatory processes. However, research that investigates the causal role of the lDLPFC in these processes is lacking. In this study, 74 participants received active or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the lDLPFC. Participants were told strangers evaluated them. These (rigged) social evaluations were presented, and in 50% of the trials, participants could anticipate the valence (positive or negative) of the upcoming social feedback. Pupil dilation (a marker of cognitive resource allocation) and skin conductance responses (a marker of arousal) were measured. The results indicate that active (compared to sham) tDCS reduced arousal during the confrontation with anticipated feedback but only marginally during the confrontation with unanticipated feedback. When participants were given the opportunity to anticipate the social feedback, tDCS reduced arousal, irrespective of whether one was anticipating or being confronted with the anticipated feedback. Moreover, tDCS reduced cognitive resource allocation during anticipation, which was associated with resource allocation increases during the subsequent confrontation. Altogether, results suggest that the lDLPFC is causally implicated in the interplay between anticipatory and online emotion regulatory processes.

Keywords: anticipation; dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; emotional processing; pupillary response; skin conductance response; transcranial direct current stimulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Social feedback paradigm.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Electric field simulations of the tDCS montage.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Experimental procedure.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Anticipated target vs unanticipated target. Notes: error bars reflect the standard error; *P < 0.05; **  P < 0.01; ***  P < 0.001. (A) Active tDCS over the left DLPFC (compared to sham tDCS) was associated with decreased SCRs during the confrontation with anticipated social feedback, whereas this effect was only marginally significant during the confrontation with unanticipated feedback. (B) Active tDCS was associated with similar PD to the confrontation with anticipated and unanticipated feedback, whereas sham tDCS was associated with larger PD during the confrontation with unanticipated vs anticipated feedback.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Cue vs anticipated target. Notes: error bars reflect the standard error; *P < 0.05; ***  P < 0.001. (A) Active tDCS over the left DLPFC (compared to sham tDCS) was associated with a general SCRs decrease, irrespective of whether one was anticipating or being confronted with anticipated social feedback. (B) Active tDCS (compared to sham tDCS) was associated with smaller PD during the anticipation of feedback, but not during the anticipated confrontation. Moreover, active tDCS was associated with larger PD during the anticipated confrontation vs anticipation, whereas during sham tDCS, this was not the case (marginally significant).
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Relationship between pupillary responses during cue and anticipated target.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Allaert, J., Sanchez-Lopez, A., De Raedt, R., Baeken, C., Vanderhasselt, M.-A. (2019). Inverse effects of tDCS over the left versus right DLPC on emotional processing: a pupillometry study. PLoS One, 14(6), e0218327. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218327. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baeken, C., De Raedt, R. (2011). Neurobiological mechanisms of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the underlying neurocircuitry in unipolar depression. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 13(1), 139–45. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baeken, C., Brunelin, J., Duprat, R., Vanderhasselt, M.A. (2016). The application of tDCS in psychiatric disorders: a brain imaging view. Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology, 6, 29588. doi: 10.3402/snp.v6.29588. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baeken, C., Remue, J., Vanderhasselt, M.A., et al. (2017). Increased left prefrontal brain perfusion after MRI compatible tDCS attenuates momentary ruminative self-referential thoughts. Brain Stimulation, 10(6), 1088–95. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.09.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Banks, S.J., Eddy, K.T., Angstadt, M., Nathan, P.J., Phan, K.L. (2007). Amygdala–frontal connectivity during emotion regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(4), 303–12. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsm029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types