Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:20:29.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diminished Risk-Aversion After Right DLPFC Stimulation: Effects of rTMS on a Risky Ball Throwing Task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2018

Jaan Tulviste  and
Talis Bachmann
Jaan Tulviste*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
Talis Bachmann
Affiliation:
Department of Penal Law, School of Law, University of Tartu (Tallinn branch), Tallinn, Estonia
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Jaan Tulviste, Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Näituse 2, Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: jaant@ut.ee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Several studies on human risk taking and risk aversion have reported the involvement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Yet, current knowledge of the neural mechanisms of risk-related decision making is not conclusive, mainly relying on studies using non-motor tasks. Here we examine how modulation of DLPFC activity by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) affects risk-taking behavior during a motor response task. Methods: One-Hertz rTMS to the right DLPFC was applied to monitor risk-taking and risk-aversion performance during a goal-directed risky task with motor response. Healthy participants were instructed to aim for a high score by throwing a ball as close to the ceiling as possible, while avoiding touching the ceiling with the ball. Results: One-Hertz rTMS stimulation to the right DLPFC significantly increased the frequency of ceiling hits, compared to Sham-stimulation. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the right DLPFC is a valid target for manipulating risky behavior in tasks with a motor-response. Following rTMS stimulation participants' preference shifts toward immediate awards, while becoming significantly less sensitive to potential negative consequences. The results confirm that the right DLPFC is involved in impulse control in goal-directed executive tasks. (JINS, 2019, 25, 72–78)

Keywords

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortexDLPFCRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationExecutive functionsRisk takingRisk aversionDecision making
Type
Regular Research
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 72 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beam, W., Borckardt, J.J., Reeves, S.T., & George, M.S. (2009). An efficient and accurate new method for locating the F3 position for prefrontal TMS applications. Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, 2(1), 50–54.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S.W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1–3), 7–15.Google Scholar
Boschin, E.A., Mars, R.B., & Buckley, M.J. (2017). Transcranial magnetic stimulation to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affects conflict-induced behavioral adaptation in a Wisconsin Card Sorting Test analogue. Neuropsychologia, 94, 36–43.Google Scholar
Briggs, G.G., & Nebes, R.D. (1975). Patterns of hand preference in a student population. Cortex, 11(3), 230–238.Google Scholar
Camus, M., Halelamien, N., Plassmann, H., Shimojo, S., O’Doherty, J., Camerer, C., & Rangel, A. (2009). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases valuations during food choices. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(10), 1980–1988.Google Scholar
Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319.Google Scholar
Chen, R., Classen, J., Gerloff, C., Celnik, P., Wassermann, E.M., Hallett, M., & Cohen, L.G. (1997). Depression of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology, 48, 1398–1403.Google Scholar
Cheng, G.L., & Lee, T.M. (2016). Altering risky decision-making: Influence of impulsivity on the neuromodulation of prefrontal cortex. Social Neuroscience, 11(4), 353–364.Google Scholar
Curtis, C.E., & D’Esposito, M. (2003). Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(9), 415–423.Google Scholar
Duecker, F., & Sack, A.T. (2015). Rethinking the role of sham TMS. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 210.Google Scholar
Fellows, L.K., & Farah, M.J. (2003). Ventromedial frontal cortex mediates affective shifting in humans: Evidence from a reversal learning paradigm. Brain, 126(8), 1830–1837.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, P.B., Fountain, S., & Daskalakis, Z.J. (2006). A comprehensive review of the effects of rTMS on motor cortical excitability and inhibition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117(12), 2584–2596.Google Scholar
Fuster, J.M. (1991). The prefrontal cortex and its relation to behavior. Progress in Brain Research, 87, 201–211.Google Scholar
Fuster, J.M. (1997). The prefrontal cortex-anatomy physiology, and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
Gable, P.A., Neal, L.B., & Threadgill, A.H. (2018). Regulatory behavior and frontal activity: Considering the role of revised‐BIS in relative right frontal asymmetry. Psychophysiology, 55(1). doi:1111/psyp.12910 Google Scholar
Gorini, A., Lucchiari, C., Russell-Edu, W., & Pravettoni, G. (2014). Modulation of risky choices in recently abstinent dependent cocaine users: A transcranial direct-current stimulation study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 661. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00661 Google Scholar
Harro, J., & Oreland, L. (2016). The role of MAO in personality and drug use. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 69, 101–111.Google Scholar
Hutcherson, C.A., Plassmann, H., Gross, J.J., & Rangel, A. (2012). Cognitive regulation during decision making shifts behavioral control between ventromedial and dorsolateral prefrontal value systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(39), 13543–13554.Google Scholar
Knoch, D., Gianotti, L.R., Pascual-Leone, A., Treyer, V., Regard, M., Hohmann, M., & Brugger, P. (2006). Disruption of right prefrontal cortex by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces risk-taking behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(24), 6469–6472.Google Scholar
Lisanby, S.H., Gutman, D., Luber, B., Schroeder, C., & Sackeim, H.A. (2001). Sham TMS: Intracerebral measurement of the induced electrical field and the induction of motor-evoked potentials. Biological Psychiatry, 49(5), 460–463.Google Scholar
Liu, P., & Feng, T. (2017). The overlapping brain region accounting for the relationship between procrastination and impulsivity: A voxel-based morphometry study. Neuroscience, 360, 9–17.Google Scholar
Manes, F., Sahakian, B., Clark, L., Rogers, R., Antoun, N., Aitken, M., & Robbins, T. (2002). Decision‐making processes following damage to the prefrontal cortex. Brain, 125(3), 624–639.Google Scholar
Miller, E.K., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202.Google Scholar
Otsa, M., Paaver, M., Harro, J., & Bachmann, T. (2016). A biomarker of risk-prone behavioral phenotype correlates with winning in a game of skill. Journal of Psychophysiology, 30, 155–164.Google Scholar
Pascual-Leone, A., & Hallett, M. (1994). Induction of errors in a delayed response task by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Neuroreport, 5(18), 2517.Google Scholar
Pochon, J.B., Levy, R., Poline, J.B., Crozier, S., Lehéricy, S., Pillon, B., … Dubois, B. (2001). The role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the preparation of forthcoming actions: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 11(3), 260–266.Google Scholar
Pripfl, J., Neumann, R., Köhler, U., & Lamm, C. (2013). Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on risky decision making are mediated by ‘hot’and ‘cold’decisions, personality, and hemisphere. European Journal of Neuroscience, 38(12), 3778–3785.Google Scholar
Rao, H., Korczykowski, M., Pluta, J., Hoang, A., & Detre, J.A. (2008). Neural correlates of voluntary and involuntary risk taking in the human brain: An fMRI Study of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART). NeuroImage, 42(2), 902–910.Google Scholar
Reckless, G.E., Bolstad, I., Nakstad, P.H., Andreassen, O.A., & Jensen, J. (2013). Motivation alters response bias and neural activation patterns in a perceptual decision-making task. Neuroscience, 238, 135–147.Google Scholar
Romero, J.R., Anschel, D., Sparing, R., Gangitano, M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Subthreshold low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation selectively decreases facilitation in the motor cortex. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(1), 101–107.Google Scholar
Ruff, C.C., Driver, J., & Bestmann, S. (2009). Combining TMS and fMRI: From ‘virtual lesions’ to functional-network accounts of cognition. Cortex, 45(9), 1043–1049.Google Scholar
Sela, T., Kilim, A., & Lavidor, M. (2012). Transcranial alternating current stimulation increases risk-taking behavior in the balloon analog risk task. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 22. doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00022 Google Scholar
Silvanto, J., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2008). State-dependency of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topography, 21(1), 1.Google Scholar
Stuss, D.T., & Alexander, M.P. (2007). Is there a dysexecutive syndrome?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 901–915.Google Scholar
Stuss, D.T. (2011). Functions of the frontal lobes: Relation to executive functions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(5), 759–765.Google Scholar
Tulviste, J., Goldberg, E., Podell, K., & Bachmann, T. (2016). Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on non-veridical decision making. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 76(3), 182–191.Google Scholar
Wassermann, E.M. (1998). Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: Report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5–7, 1996. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 108(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Wassermann, E.M., & Lisanby, S.H. (2001). Therapeutic application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112(8), 1367–1377.Google Scholar