On the Irrelevance of Neuromyths to Teacher Effectiveness: Comparing Neuro-Literacy Levels Amongst Award-Winning and Non-award Winning Teachers.

A number of studies have recently demonstrated a high level of belief in 'neuromyths' (fallacious arguments about the brain) amongst trainee and non-award winning educators. The authors of these studies infer this to mean that acceptance of these neuromyths has a negative impact on teaching effectiveness. In this study, we explored this assumption by assessing the prevalence of neuromyth acceptance amongst a group of internationally recognized, award-winning teachers and comparing this to previously published data with trainee and non-award winning teacher populations. Results revealed the acceptance of neuromyths to be nearly identical between these two groups, with the only difference occurring on 2 (out of 15) items. These findings suggest that one cannot make simple, unqualified arguments concerning the relationship between belief in neuromyths and teacher effectiveness. In fact, the idea that neuromyths negatively impact upon teaching might, itself, be a neuromyth.

No significant effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) found on simple motor reaction time comparing 15 different simulation protocols.

BACKGROUND: Research exploring the behavioral impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over M1 has produced homogenous results. The most common explanations to address this homogeneity concerns the differential impact of varied tDCS parameters (such as stimulation intensity or electrode montage). To explore this, we systematically examined the effects of 15 different tDCS protocols on a well-elucidated neurobehavioral system: simple visual motor reaction time (smRT). METHODS: For the initial phase of this study, 150 healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of 5 experimental groups (2mA anodal, 2mA cathodal, 1mA anodal, 1mA cathodal, or sham) across 3 different conditions (orbitofrontal, bilateral, or extracephalic reference electrode location). The active electrode was always placed over M1 and tDCS lasted for 20min. Starting ~5min prior to stimulation and running continuously for ~30min, participants were repeatedly presented with a visual cue centered on a computer monitor and asked to press a response button as quickly as possible at stimulus onset (stimuli number: 100 pre-, 400 during-, and 100-post stimulation - interstimulus interval: 1-3s). Ex-gaussian distribution curves, miss, and error rates were determined for each normalized batch of 100 RTs and compared using a two-way ANOVA. As the largest group differences were seen with 2mA anodal (compared to sham) stimulation using an orbitofrontal montage, an additional 60 healthy participants were recruited to further test for significance in this condition. RESULTS: No significant impact of tDCS was seen on any parameter of smRT distribution, error rate, or miss rate, regardless of polarity, stimulation intensity, electrode montage, or stimulation-to-task relationship. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that tDCS over M1 might not have a predictable or reliable effect on short duration smRT. Our results raise interesting questions regarding the mechanisms by which tDCS might modulate more complex motor behaviors. Additional research utilizing multiple tDCS protocols as undertaken here will help address and clarify these concerns.

Effects of a common transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol on motor evoked potentials found to be highly variable within individuals over 9 testing sessions.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses a weak electric current to modulate neuronal activity. A neurophysiologic outcome measure to demonstrate reliable tDCS modulation at the group level is transcranial magnetic stimulation engendered motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Here, we conduct a study testing the reliability of individual MEP response patterns following a common tDCS protocol. Fourteen participants (7m/7f) each underwent nine randomized sessions of 1 mA, 10 min tDCS (3 anode; 3 cathode; 3 sham) delivered using an M1/orbito-frontal electrode montage (sessions separated by an average of ~5.5 days). Fifteen MEPs were obtained prior to, immediately following and in 5 min intervals for 30 min following tDCS. TMS was delivered at 130 % resting motor threshold using neuronavigation to ensure consistent coil localization. A number of non-experimental variables were collected during each session. At the individual level, considerable variability was seen among different testing sessions. No participant demonstrated an excitatory response ≥20 % to all three anodal sessions, and no participant demonstrated an inhibitory response ≥20 % to all three cathodal sessions. Intra-class correlation revealed poor anodal and cathodal test-retest reliability [anode: ICC(2,1) = 0.062; cathode: ICC(2,1) = 0.055] and moderate sham test-retest reliability [ICC(2,1) = 0.433]. Results also revealed no significant effect of tDCS at the group level. Using this common protocol, we found the effects of tDCS on MEP amplitudes to be highly variable at the individual level. In addition, no significant effects of tDCS on MEP amplitude were found at the group level. Future studies should consider utilizing a more strict experimental protocol to potentially account for intra-individual response variations.

Quantitative Review Finds No Evidence of Cognitive Effects in Healthy Populations From Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).

BACKGROUND: Over the last 15-years, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a relatively novel form of neuromodulation, has seen a surge of popularity in both clinical and academic settings. Despite numerous claims suggesting that a single session of tDCS can modulate cognition in healthy adult populations (especially working memory and language production), the paradigms utilized and results reported in the literature are extremely variable. To address this, we conduct the largest quantitative review of the cognitive data to date. METHODS: Single-session tDCS data in healthy adults (18-50) from every cognitive outcome measure reported by at least two different research groups in the literature was collected. Outcome measures were divided into 4 broad categories: executive function, language, memory, and miscellaneous. To account for the paradigmatic variability in the literature, we undertook a three-tier analysis system; each with less-stringent inclusion criteria than the prior. Standard mean difference values with 95% CIs were generated for included studies and pooled for each analysis. RESULTS: Of the 59 analyses conducted, tDCS was found to not have a significant effect on any - regardless of inclusion laxity. This includes no effect on any working memory outcome or language production task. CONCLUSION: Our quantitative review does not support the idea that tDCS generates a reliable effect on cognition in healthy adults. Reasons for and limitations of this finding are discussed. This work raises important questions regarding the efficacy of tDCS, state-dependency effects, and future directions for this tool in cognitive research.

Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of neuromodulation that is increasingly being utilized to examine and modify a number of cognitive and behavioral measures. The theoretical mechanisms by which tDCS generates these changes are predicated upon a rather large neurophysiological literature. However, a robust systematic review of this neurophysiological data has not yet been undertaken. METHODS: tDCS data in healthy adults (18-50) from every neurophysiological outcome measure reported by at least two different research groups in the literature was collected. When possible, data was pooled and quantitatively analyzed to assess significance. When pooling was not possible, data was qualitatively compared to assess reliability. RESULTS: Of the 30 neurophysiological outcome measures reported by at least two different research groups, tDCS was found to have a reliable effect on only one: MEP amplitude. Interestingly, the magnitude of this effect has been significantly decreasing over the last 14 years. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review does not support the idea that tDCS has a reliable neurophysiological effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation - though important limitations of this review (and conclusion) are discussed. This work raises questions concerning the mechanistic foundations and general efficacy of this device - the implications of which extend to the steadily increasing tDCS psychological literature.