Efficacy of single-session transcranial direct current stimulation on addiction-related inhibitory control and craving: a randomized trial in males with Internet gaming disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) may reduce substance use and other addictive behaviours. However, the cognitive mechanisms that underpin such effects remain unclear. Impaired inhibitory control linked to hypoactivation of the prefrontal cortex may allow craving-related motivations to lead to compulsive addictive behaviours. However, very few studies have examined whether increasing the activation of the dlPFC via anodal tDCS could enhance inhibitory control over addiction-related distractors. The current study aimed to enrich empirical evidence related to this issue. METHODS: Thirty-three males with Internet gaming disorder underwent active (1.5 mA for 20 minutes) and sham tDCS 1 week apart, in randomized order. We assessed inhibitory control over gaming-related distractors and craving pre- and post-stimulation. RESULTS: Relative to sham treatment, active tDCS reduced interference from gaming-related (versus non-gaming) distractors and attenuated background craving, but did not affect cue-induced craving. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its relatively small sample size and the fact that it lacked assessments of tDCS effects on addictive behaviour. Future tDCS studies with multiple sessions in larger samples are warranted to examine the effects on addictive behaviours of alterations in addiction-related inhibitory control. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that stimulation of the dlPFC influences inhibitory control over addiction-related cues and addiction-related motivation. This is the first empirical study to suggest that enhanced inhibitory control may be a cognitive mechanism underlying the effects of tDCS on addictions like Internet gaming disorder. Our finding of attenuated background craving replicated previous tDCS studies. Intriguingly, our finding of distinct tDCS effects on 2 forms of craving suggests that they may have disparate underlying mechanisms or differential sensitivity to tDCS. CLINICAL TRIALS #: NCT03352973.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".