اثر دو روش تحریک جریان مستقیم فراجمجمه‌ای مغز (tDCS) و ناهمزمانی محرک- پاسخ‌ها بر سازگاری عقب‌گرد در شرایط خستگیِ ذهنی

حافظی, سمیه; دوستان, محمدرضا; صائمی, اسماعیل

doi:10.22059/jsmdl.2023.361794.1744

فهرست نشریات

فهرست نشریات دارای اعتبار وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری

فهرست مجلات علمی- پژوهشی دانشگاه تهران

نحوه ارسال مقاله برای مجله- ثبت نام در سامانه- فراموش کردن رمز عبور

تعداد نشریات	161
تعداد شماره‌ها	6,532
تعداد مقالات	70,501
تعداد مشاهده مقاله	124,113,815
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله	97,217,517

	اثر دو روش تحریک جریان مستقیم فراجمجمه‌ای مغز (tDCS) و ناهمزمانی محرک- پاسخ‌ها بر سازگاری عقب‌گرد در شرایط خستگیِ ذهنی
رشد و یادگیری حرکتی ورزشی
دوره 16، شماره 1، فروردین 1403، صفحه 69-89 اصل مقاله (683.31 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license I Open Access I
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jsmdl.2023.361794.1744
نویسندگان
سمیه حافظی¹؛ محمدرضا دوستان^* ²؛ اسماعیل صائمی³
¹گروه رفتار حرکتی و روانشناسی ورزشی، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران
²استادیار گروه رفتار حرکتی و روانشناسی ورزشی، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران
³دانشیار گروه رفتار حرکتی و روانشناسی ورزشی، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران
چکیده
مقدمه: هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی تأثیر دو روش tDCS آندی و کاتدی مغز و ناهمزمانی محرک- پاسخ‌ها بر سازگاری عقب‌گرد در شرایط خستگیِ ذهنی حاد بود. روش پژوهش: شرکت‌کنندگان 39 پسر (20 تا 24 سال) بودند. ابزارها شامل برگۀ رضایت آگاهانه، پرسشنامۀ دست برتری ادینبورگ، ابزار زمان واکنش دوگانه، نرم‌افزار استروپ، پرسش‌نامۀ مقیاس آنالوگ دیداری (VAS-F) و دستگاه تحریک جریان مستقیم فراجمجمه‌ای (tDCS) بود. شرکت‌کنندگان در پیش‌آزمون در دو شرایط غیرخستگی و خستگی ذهنی با ابزار زمان واکنش دوگانه آزمون شدند. آزمون‌ها شامل دو محرک-پاسخ دیداری سه‌انتخابی (حروف و رنگ) با ده SOAs مختلف بود. سپس افراد به‌صورت تصادفی در سه گروه تحریک آندال، کاتدال و شم قرار گرفتند مداخله شامل چهار جلسۀ متوالی 20 دقیقه تحریک tDCS بر روی ناحیۀ DLPFCبود. یک روز و 4 روز پس از آخرین جلسۀ تحریک، آزمون‌ها تکرار شد. برای تحلیل استنباطی، از تحلیل واریانس مرکب و آنووای یکراهه در سطح معناداری 0/05 استفاده شد. یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد که بین SOAs مختلف در زمان پاسخ به محرک اول که نمایشی از سازگاری عقب‌گرد است، تفاوت وجود دارد و در فواصل پایین، زمان پاسخ به محرک اول کمتر است. همچنین بین زمان پاسخ به محرک اول در فواصل بین‌محرکی پایین بین شرایط خستگی و غیرخستگی تفاوت وجود دارد. با این حال، اثرگذاری tDCS کاتدی و آندی بر RT1 بسیار اندک بود. نتیجه‌گیری: به‌طور کلی نتایج نشان داد که حداقل برخی از جنبه‌های مرکزی مربوط به پاسخ می‌تواند به‌صورت موازی پردازش شود. خستگی نیز بر این پردازش موازی تأثیر دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
تکلیف دوگانه؛ زمان واکنش؛ خستگی ذهنی؛ دوره بی پاسخی روانشناختی
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Effect of Two Methods of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Stimulus-Response Asynchrony on Backward-Compatibility Effect in Mental Fatigue Conditions
نویسندگان [English]
Somayeh Hafezi¹؛ Mohammadreza Doustan²؛ Esmaeel Saemi³
¹Department of Motor behavior and sports psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.
²Assistant professor of Department of Motor Behavior and sport psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
³Associate Professor of department of Motor behavior and sports psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.
چکیده [English]
. Introduction: The present study aimed to investigate the effect of anodal and cathodal brain tDCS and stimulus-response asynchrony on the backward-compatibility effect (BCE) in conditions of acute mental fatigue. Methods: The participants were 39 boys (20 to 24 years old). The instruments included the informed consent form, the Edinburgh handedness questionnaire, the dual reaction time instrument, the Stroop software, the visual analog scale to evaluate fatigue severity (VAS-F), and the tDCS device. The participants in the pre-test were tested in two conditions of non-fatigue and mental fatigue with a dual reaction time instrument. The tests consisted of two three-choice visual stimulus-response (letters and colors) with ten different stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Then the subjects were randomly assigned to three Anodal, Cathodal, and Sham stimulation groups. The intervention consisted of four consecutive 20-minute sessions of tDCS stimulation on the DLPFC area. One day and four days after the last stimulation session, the tests were repeated. For inferential data analysis, Mixed Model ANOVA and One-way ANOVA tests were used at a significance level of 0.05. Results: The results showed that there is a difference between different SOAs in response time to the first stimulus (RT1) which is a representation of backward adaptation, and at lower SOAs, the RT1 is shorter. Also, there is a difference in RT1 at low SOAs between fatigued and non-fatigued conditions. However, the effect of cathodal and anodal tDCS on RT1 was very small. Conclusion: In general, the results showed that at least some central aspects related to the response can be processed in parallel. Fatigue also affects this parallel processing.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Dual task, Mental fatigue Psychological refractory period Reaction time

مراجع
Batsikadze, G., Moliadze, V., Paulus, W., Kuo, M. F., & Nitsche, M. (2013). Partially non‐linear stimulation intensity‐dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. The Journal of physiology, 591(7), 1987-2000. https://doi.org/ 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.249730 Baurès, R., DeLucia, P. R., Olson, M., & Oberfeld, D. (2017). Asymmetric interference in concurrent time-to-contact estimation: Cousin or twin of the psychological refractory period effect? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(2), 698-711. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/s13414-016-1244-y Bender, A. D., Filmer, H. L., Garner, K. G., Naughtin, C. K., & Dux, P. E. (2016). On the relationship between response selection and response inhibition: An individual differences approach. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2420-2432. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/s13414-016-1158-8 Berryhill, M. E., & Martin, D. (2018). Cognitive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy and clinical populations: an overview. The journal of ECT, 34(3), e25-e35. https://doi.org/n10.1097/YCT.0000000000000534 Berryhill, M. E., Peterson, D. J., Jones, K. T., & Stephens, J. A. (2014). Hits and misses: leveraging tDCS to advance cognitive research. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 800. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00800 Devanathan, D., & Madhavan, S. (2016). Effects of anodal tDCS of the lower limb M1 on ankle reaction time in young adults. Experimental brain research, 234(2), 377-385. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00221-015-4470-y Diamond, A. (2006). Bootstrapping conceptual deduction using physical connection: Rethinking frontal cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(5), 212-218. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.003 Eder, A. B., Pfister, R., Dignath, D., & Hommel, B. (2017). Anticipatory affect during action preparation: Evidence from backward compatibility in dual-task performance. Cognition and Emotion, 31(6), 1211-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1208151 Ehrhardt, S. E., Filmer, H. L., Wards, Y., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2021). The influence of TDCS intensity on decision-making training and transfer outcomes. Journal of Neurophysiology, 125(2), 385-397. https://doi.org/ 10.1152/jn.00423.2020 Filmer, H. L., Ehrhardt, S. E., Bollmann, S., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2019). Accounting for individual differences in the response to tDCS with baseline levels of neurochemical excitability. Cortex, 115, 324-334. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.02.012 Filmer, H. L., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2013a). Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS. Cortex, 49(10), 2845-2852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.08.015 Filmer, H. L., Mattingley, J. B., Marois, R., & Dux, P. E. (2013b). Disrupting prefrontal cortex prevents performance gains from sensory-motor training. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(47), 18654-18660. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2019-13.2013 Filmer, H. L., Varghese, E., Hawkins, G. E., Mattingley, J. B., & Dux, P. E. (2017). Improvements in attention and decision-making following combined behavioral training and brain stimulation. Cerebral cortex, 27(7), 3675-3682. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw189 Gálvez, V., Alonzo, A., Martin, D., & Loo, C. K. (2013). Transcranial direct current stimulation treatment protocols: should stimulus intensity be constant or incremental over multiple sessions? International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 16(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1461145712000041 Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclán, F. (1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: Does arousal speed decision making? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(3), 321-329. https://doi.org/ 10.1162/089892999563427 Henry, G., Dawson, B., Lay, B., & Young, W. (2012). Effects of a feint on reactive agility performance. Journal of sports sciences, 30(8), 787-795. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02640414.2012.671527 Hoffmann, M. A., Pieczykolan, A., Koch, I., & Huestegge, L. (2020). Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(7), 3402-3414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02071-6 Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368. https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0096-1523.24.5.1368 Kavyani M, Farsi A, Abdoli B. The backward crosstalk effect or response grouping in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Feyz 2017; 21(5): 433-42. (In Persian) Kimura, T., Kaneko, F., & Nagamine, T. (2021). The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Dual-Task Interference Depend on the Dual-Task Content. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 15, 157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.653713 Kuo, M. F., Unger, M., Liebetanz, D., Lang, N., Tergau, F., Paulus, W., & Nitsche, M. A. (2008). Limited impact of homeostatic plasticity on motor learning in humans. Neuropsychologia, 46(8), 2122-2128. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.023 Layton, C. (1991). How fast are the punches and kicks of traditional Shotokan karateka? Traditional Karate, 4, 29 31. https://doi.org/ 10.2466/pms.1993.76.3.1001 Le Mansec, Y., Dorel, S., Nordez, A., & Jubeau, M. (2019). Is reaction time altered by mental or physical exertion? European journal of applied physiology, 119(6), 1323-1335. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00421-019-04124-7 Machado, D. G. D. S., Unal, G., Andrade, S. M., Moreira, A., Altimari, L. R., Brunoni, A. R., ... & Okano, A. H. (2019). Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on exercise performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain stimulation, 12(3), 593-605. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.227 Magill, R., & Anderson, D. I. (2010). Motor learning and control. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing. Mehrdadian, M., Saemi, E., Badicu, G., Doustan, M., & Yamaguchi, T. (2023). A Selected Balance Exercise Combined with Anodal tDCS Was Beneficial in Balance Performance but not in Working Memory in Healthy Older Adults. International Journal of Motor Control and Learning, 5(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.61186/ijmcl.5.2.1 Migliaccio, G. M., Di Filippo, G., Russo, L., Orgiana, T., Ardigò, L. P., Casal, M. Z., ... & Padulo, J. (2022). Effects of mental fatigue on reaction time in sportsmen. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(21), 14360. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph192114360 Miller, J. (2006). Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: Effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies. Psychological Research, 70(6), 484-493. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00426-005-0011-9 Miniussi, C., Harris, J. A., & Ruzzoli, M. (2013). Modelling non-invasive brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1702-1712. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.014 Mohammadzadeh, S; Farsi, A. R; & Khosrowabadi, R. (2020). The Effect of Cognitive Fatigue on the Neural Efficacy of the Executive Control Network among Athletes: Dual Regulation System Model. Sport Psychology Studies, 8(30); Pp: 41-56. https://doi.org/ 10.22089/spsyj.2019.7301.1778 (In Persian) Molero-Chamizo, A., Bailén, J. R. A., Béjar, T. G., López, M. G., Rodríguez, I. J., Lérida, C. G., ... & Rivera-Urbina, G. N. (2018). Poststimulation time interval-dependent effects of motor cortex anodal tDCS on reaction-time task performance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(1), 167-175. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/s13415-018-0561-0 Müller, T., & Apps, M. A. (2019). Motivational fatigue: A neurocognitive framework for the impact of effortful exertion on subsequent motivation. Neuropsychologia, 123, 141-151. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.030 Nacson, J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1971). The activity-set hypothesis for warm-up decrement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222895.1971.10734887 Nikooharf Salehi, E., Jaydari Fard, S., Jaberzadeh, S., & Zoghi, M. (2021). Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces the Negative Impact of Mental Fatigue on Swimming Performance. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1-10. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222895.2021.1962238 Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2011). Transcranial direct current stimulation—update 2011. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 29(6),463–492. https://doi.org/ 10.3233/RNN-2011-0618 Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 Pavelka, R., Třebický, V., Třebická Fialová, J., Zdobinský, A., Coufalová, K., Havlíček, J., & Tufano, J. J. (2020). Acute fatigue affects reaction times and reaction consistency in Mixed Martial Arts fighters. PloS one, 15(1), e0227675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227675 Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Cross-modal action complexity: action-and rule-related memory retrieval in dual-response control. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00529 Pieczykolan, A., & Huestegge, L. (2019). Action scheduling in multitasking: A multi-phase framework of response-order control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(5), 1464-1487. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-01660-w Rabipour, S., Vidjen, P. S., Remaud, A., Davidson, P. S., & Tremblay, F. (2019). Examining the interactions between expectations and tDCS effects on motor and cognitive performance. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 999. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00999 Rau, P. L. P., & Zheng, J. (2020). Cross-modal psychological refractory period in vision, audition, and haptics. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-01978-4 Rothwell, J., Antal A., Burke, D., Carlsen, A., Georgiev, D., Jahanshahi, M., Sternad, D., Valls-Solé, J., Ziemann, U. (2021). Central nervous system physiology. Clinical neurophysiology, 132 (12), 3043-3083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2021.09.013 Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Motor learning and performance: A situation-based learning approach. Human kinetics. Schmidt, R.A., & T.D. Lee. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4rd ed.). Human Kinetics. Seidel, O., & Ragert, P. (2019). Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex on reaction time and tapping performance: a comparison between athletes and non-athletes. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 13, 103. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00103 Sevilla-Sanchez, M., Hortobágyi, T., Carballeira, E., Fogelson, N., & Fernandez-del-Olmo, M. (2022). A lack of timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the performance of a choice reaction time task. Neuroscience Letters, 782, 136691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136691 Shahid, A., Wilkinson, K., Marcu, S., & Shapiro, C. M. (2011). Visual analogue scale to evaluate fatigue severity (VAS-F). In STOP, THAT and one hundred other sleep scales (pp. 399-402). New York, NY: Springer New York. Stagg, C. J., Jayaram, G., Pastor, D., Kincses, Z. T., Matthews, P. M., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2011). Polarity and timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in explicit motor learning. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 800-804. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.009 Strobach, T., Schütz, A., & Schubert, T. (2015). On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 403. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00403 Sun, H., Soh, K. G., Roslan, S., Wazir, M. R. W. N., & Soh, K. L. (2021(. Does mental fatigue affect skilled performance in athletes? A systematic review. PloS one, 16(10), e0258307. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0258307. eCollection 2021 Thair, H., Holloway, A. L., Newport, R., & Smith, A. D. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): a beginner's guide for design and implementation. Frontiers in neuroscience, 11, 641. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnins.2017.00641 Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological research, 66(4), 274-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0101-x Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3. https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0096-1523.29.1.3 Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.790 Tremblay, S., Lepage, J. F., Latulipe-Loiselle, A., Fregni, F., Pascual-Leone, A., & Théoret, H. (2014). The uncertain outcome of prefrontal tDCS. Brain stimulation, 7(6), 773-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.003 Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2008). Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: Models and contamination effects. Cognitive Psychology, 57(2), 75-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.06.004 Volle, E., Kinkingnéhun, S., Pochon, J. B., Mondon, K., Thiebaut de Schotten, M., Seassau, M., & Levy, R. (2008). The functional architecture of the left posterior and lateral prefrontal cortex in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 18(10), 2460-2469. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/cercor/bhn010 Weigelt, M., Güldenpenning, I., Steggemann-Weinrich, Y., Alaboud, M. A. A., & Kunde, W. (2017). Control over the processing of the opponent’s gaze direction in basketball experts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 828-834. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/s13423-016-1140-4 Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high‐speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2-19. Zamani, G., & Doostan, M. R. (2018). The effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory and Reaction‌time in Athlete Girls. Neuropsychology, 3(10), 51-62.
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 178 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 172

سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب

پیوندهای مفید

پیوندهای مفید

اخبار و اعلانات

آمار

اثر دو روش تحریک جریان مستقیم فراجمجمه‌ای مغز (tDCS) و ناهمزمانی محرک- پاسخ‌ها بر سازگاری عقب‌گرد در شرایط خستگیِ ذهنی