PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

213

Title *

Replicating the facilitatory effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on motion processing: A registered reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Mica B. Carroll*, Grace Edwards*, Chris I. BakerPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have the potential to demonstrate the causal impact of targeted brain regions on specific behaviors, and to regulate or facilitate behavior in clinical applications. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is one form of transcranial electric stimulation (tES) in which an alternating current is passed between electrodes at random frequencies. High-frequency tRNS (hf-tRNS) is thought to enhance excitability and has been reported to have facilitatory effects on behavior in healthy and clinical populations. Due to the potential application of tRNS, clear demonstrations of the efficacy and replicability of stimulation are critical. Here, we propose to replicate the facilitatory effect of hf-tRNS over the human middle temporal complex (hMT+) on contralateral motion processing, initially demonstrated by Ghin et al. (2018). The improvement in performance was specific to global motion processing in the visual field contralateral to stimulation. The motivation to replicate this effect is reinforced by the well-supported hypothesis that hMT+ is critical for contralateral global motion processing. We hypothesize that we will replicate the facilitatory effect of hf-tRNS to hMT+ on contralateral global motion processing in comparison to sham stimulation. Furthermore, we extend the original findings with the addition of a within-subjects comparison between stimulation to target region hMT+ and an active control, the forehead. We expect to find a significant contralateral stimulation effect for hMT+ only.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

tRNS; hMT+; facilitation; maximum likelihood procedure; motion coherence; vision

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Life Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2022-06-02 21:25:02

Recommender

Robert McIntosh

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report