The effect of Different Models of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Risky Decision-Making in Sports Referees

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Sports Management, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Department of Sport management, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

3 Department of Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

4 Assistant Professor / Razi University

5 Human Performance Research Centre, Department of Sport Science, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of different models of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on risky decision-making in male team sports referees. Twenty four Football, Futsal, Vollyball, Basketball, and Hanbal referees aged 19-38 at level 3 to national level with 2-18 years of experience voluntarily took part in this study. After the familiarization session, in a double-blind, sham-controlled crossover design, each subject visited the laboratory on three different occasions separated by at least 72 hours in between and was exposed to anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation types over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC). Before and after each stimulation type, Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and Impulsivity (IMP) Go/No Go psychological tasks were performed. The difference between the mean values of the variables (Delta) at pre and post-intervention were calculated and used for statistical analyses. The results showed that delta IGT was significantly higher in Anodal and Cathodal stimulation compared to sham stimulation (p=0.003, p=0.01, respectively). On the other hand, a significantly higher delta IMP was observed in anodal and sham stimulation in comparison with cathodal stimulation (p=0.0001, p=0.002, respectively). As a novel finding, these results indicated the positive effects of anodal stimulations over the right DLPFC in factors associated with risky decision-making in male sports referees. To conclude, these results pave the path for using tDCS as a possible strategy to boost risky decision-making in male sport referees. However, more research is needed to ascertain this conjecture.

Keywords

References

  1. Lorenza S. Colzato, MAN, Armin Kibele. Noninvasive Brain Stimulation and Neural Entrainment Enhance Athletic Performance—a Review. J Cogn Enhanc. 2017;1:73-9.
  2. Davis NJ. Neurodoping: brain stimulation as a performance-enhancing measure. Sports Med. 2013;43(8):649-53.
  3. Ehsan Amiri RG, Hamid Rajabi, Zahra Rezasoltani, Kamran Azma, Aboozar Kavehee. Changes in corticospinal excitability and motoneurones responsiveness during and within a time-course after submaximal fatiguing contractions (In Persian). Sport Physiology. 2019;10(39):33-50.
  4. Hossein Ramezani ZFM, Somayeh Namdar Tajari, Reza Khanbabaie. The Acute Effect of Post-Activation Potentiation with Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation on Some Electrophysiological and Functional Variables of Athletic Men (In Persian). Sport Physiology. 2020;11(44):31-54.
  5. Okano AH, Fontes EB, Montenegro RA, Farinatti Pde T, Cyrino ES, Li LM, et al. Brain stimulation modulates the autonomic nervous system, rating of perceived exertion and performance during maximal exercise. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(18):1213-8.
  6. Reardon S. 'Brain doping' may improve athletes' performance. Nature. 2016;531:283-4.

 

 

  1. Vazne Ž, Rudzītis A, Lāriņš V. Jauno basketbolistu psiholoģiskās sagatavotības faktoru struktūra. ATEE Spring University Teacher of the 21st Century: Quality Education for quality teaching. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Pulishing; 2008:126-34.
  2. Ouellet J, McGirr A, Van den Eynde F, Jollant F, Lepage M, Berlim MT. Enhancing decision-making and cognitive impulse control with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied over the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC): A randomized and sham-controlled exploratory study. J Psychiatr Res. 2015;69:27-34.
  3. Stanford MS, Mathias CW, Dougherty DM, Lake SL, Anderson NE, Patton JH. Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Per Individ Dif. 2009;47(5):385-95.
  4. Dickman SJ. Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: personality and cognitive correlates. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58(1):95.
  5. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio AR. Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex (New York, NY : 1991). 1996;6(2):215-25.
  6. Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M, Boggio PS, Brunoni AR, Celnik P, et al. A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1031-48.
  7. Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2006;117(4):845-50.
  8. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50(1-3):7-15.
  9. Soyata AZ, Aksu S, Woods AJ, İşçen P, Saçar KT, Karamürsel S. Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on decision making and cognitive flexibility in gambling disorder. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2019;269(3):275-84.
  10. Ota K, Shinya M, Kudo K. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Modulates Risk-Attitude in Motor Decision-Making. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:297.
  11. Yang X, Gao M, Shi J, Ye H, Chen S. Modulating the Activity of the DLPFC and OFC Has Distinct Effects on Risk and Ambiguity Decision-Making: A tDCS Study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:14-17.
  12. Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM, Swann AC. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158(11):1783-93.
  13. Minati L, Campanhã C, Critchley HD, Boggio PS. Effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) during a mixed-gambling risky decision-making task. Cognitive neuroscience. 2012;3(2):80-8.
  14. Dickman SJ. Impulsivity and information processing.  In: McCown WG, Johnson JL, Shure MB. editors. The impulsive client: theory, research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993. pp. 151-84.
  15. Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999;71(2):121-43.
  16. Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Sixth Edition. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics; 2018. 309-319.
  17. Friehs MA, Güldenpenning I, Frings C, Weigelt M. Electrify your game! Anodal tDCS increases the resistance to head fakes in basketball. J Cogn Enhanc. 2020;4(1):62-70.
  18. Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences. 1996;351(1346):1413-20.
  19. León JJ, Sánchez-Kuhn A, Fernández-Martín P, Páez-Pérez MA, Thomas C, Datta A, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation improves risky decision making in women but not in men: A sham-controlled study. Behav Brain Res. 2020;382:112485.
  20. Vinogradov S, Fisher M, de Villers-Sidani E. Cognitive training for impaired neural systems in neuropsychiatric illness. Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37(1):43-76.
Sport Physiology
Volume 13, Issue 51 - Serial Number 51
November 2021
Pages 117-138

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 April 2021
  • Revise Date: 17 August 2021
  • Accept Date: 24 August 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics