The influence of hand posture on tactile processing: Evidence from a 7T functional magnetic resonance imaging study.

Although behavioral evidence has shown that postural changes influence the ability to localize or detect tactile stimuli, little is known regarding the brain areas that modulate these effects. This 7T functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study explores the effects of touch of the hand as a function of hand location (right or left side of the body) and hand configuration (open or closed). We predicted that changes in hand configuration would be represented in contralateral primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and the anterior intraparietal area (aIPS), whereas change in position of the hand would be associated with alterations in activation in the superior parietal lobule. Multivoxel pattern analysis and a region of interest approach partially supported our predictions. Decoding accuracy for hand location was above chance level in superior parietal lobule (SPL) and in the anterior intraparietal (aIPS) area; above chance classification of hand configuration was observed in SPL and S1. This evidence confirmed the role of the parietal cortex in postural effects on touch and the possible role of S1 in coding the body form representation of the hand.

No evidential value in samples of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies of cognition and working memory in healthy populations.

A substantial number of studies have been published over the last decade, claiming that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can influence performance on cognitive tasks. However, there is some skepticism regarding the efficacy of tDCS, and evidence from meta-analyses are mixed. One major weakness of these meta-analyses is that they only examine outcomes in published studies. Given biases towards publishing positive results in the scientific literature, there may be a substantial "file-drawer" of unpublished negative results in the tDCS literature. Furthermore, multiple researcher degrees of freedom can also inflate published p-values. Recently, Simonsohn, Nelson and Simmons (2014) created a novel meta-analytic tool that examines the distribution of significant p-values in a literature, and compares it to expected distributions with different effect sizes. Using this tool, one can assess whether the selected studies have evidential value. Therefore, we examined a random selection of studies that used tDCS to alter performance on cognitive tasks, and tDCS studies on working memory in a recently published meta-analysis (Mancuso et al., 2016). Using a p-curve analysis, we found no evidence that the tDCS studies had evidential value (33% power or greater), with the estimate of statistical power of these studies being approximately 14% for the cognitive studies, and 5% (what would be expected from randomly generated data) for the working memory studies. It is likely that previous tDCS studies are substantially underpowered, and we provide suggestions for future research to increase the evidential value of future tDCS studies.