Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Attentional Bias to Methamphetamine Cues and Its Association With EEG-Derived Functional Brain Network Topology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown to potentially mitigate drug craving and attentional bias to drug-related stimuli, individual differences in such modulatory effects of tDCS are less understood. In this study, we aimed to investigate a source of the inter-subject variability in the tDCS effects that can be useful for tDCS-based treatments of individuals with methamphetamine (MA) use disorder (IMUD). METHODS: Forty-two IMUD (all male) were randomly assigned to receive a single-session of either sham or real bilateral tDCS (anodal right/cathodal left) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The tDCS effect on MA craving and biased attention to drug stimuli were investigated by quantifying EEG-derived P3 (a measure of initial attentional bias) and late positive potential (LPP; a measure of sustained motivated attention) elicited by these stimuli. To assess the association of changes in P3 and LPP with brain connectivity network (BCN) topology, the correlation between topology metrics, specifically those related to the efficiency of information processing, and the tDCS effect was investigated. RESULTS: The P3 amplitude significantly decreased following the tDCS session, whereas the amplitudes increased in the sham group. The changes in P3 amplitudes were significantly correlated with communication efficiency measured by BCN topology metrics (r = -0.47, P = .03; r = -0.49, P = .02). There was no significant change in LPP amplitude due to the tDCS application. CONCLUSIONS: These findings validate that tDCS mitigates initial attentional bias, but not the sustained motivated attention, to MA stimuli. Importantly, however, results also show that the individual differences in the effects of tDCS may be underpinned by communication efficiency of the BCN topology, and therefore, these BCN topology metrics may have the potential to robustly predict the effectiveness of tDCS-based interventions on MA craving and attentional bias to MA stimuli among IMUD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".