The effect of brain anodic and cathodic tDCS on PRP at different stimulus‑onsets asynchrony in non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions

Abstract

Abstract The psychological refractory period (PRP) effect occurs when two stimuli that require separate responses are presented sequentially, particularly with a short and variable time interval between them. Fatigue is a suboptimal psycho-physiological state that leads to changes in strategies. In recent years, numerous studies have investigated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor control. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of two tDCS methods, anodal and cathodal, on PRP in ten different conditions of asynchronous onset of two stimuli (SOAs) under non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions. The participants involved 39 male university students aged 19 to 25 years. In the pre-test, they were assessed using the PRP measurement tool under both non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions. The mental fatigue was induced by a 30-minute Stroop task. The test consisted of two stimuli with different SOAs (50, 75, 100, 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1200, and 1500 ms). The first was a visual stimulus with three choices (letters A, B, and C). After a random SOA, the second stimulus, a visual stimulus with three choices (colors red, yellow, and blue), was presented. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to the anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation groups and underwent four consecutive sessions of tDCS stimulation. In the anodal and cathodal stimulation groups, 20 minutes of tDCS stimulation were applied to the pLPFC area in each session, while in the sham group, the stimulation was artificially applied. All participants were assessed using the same measurement tools as in the pre-test phase in a post-test phase one day after the last stimulation session, and in a follow-up phase four days after that. Inferential statistics, including mixed ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, independent and dependent t-tests. The findings indicated that the response time to the second stimulus was longer at lower SOAs. However, there was no significant difference between the groups in this regard. Additionally, there was no significant difference in response time to the second stimulus between the fatigue and non-fatigue conditions, or between the groups. Therefore, tDCS had no significant effect. There was a significant difference between mental fatigue and non-fatigue conditions in the psychological refractory period. Moreover, at lower SOAs, the PRP was longer than at higher SOAs. In conditions of fatigue, the active stimulation groups (anodal and cathodal) performed better than the sham stimulation group at higher SOAs. Considering the difference in response to both stimuli at different SOAs, some central aspects of the response can be simultaneously parallel. Fatigue also affects parallel processing. This study supports the response integration phenomenon in PRP, which predicts that there will be an increase in response time to the first stimulus as the interval between the presentation of the two stimuli increases. This finding contradicts the bottleneck model. In this study, the effectiveness of cathodal and anodal tDCS on response time to the second stimulus and PRP was found to be very small.