Search

In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.

Previous research has highlighted the role of the excitation/inhibition (E/I) ratio for typical and atypical development, mental health, cognition, and learning. Other research has highlighted the benefits of high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS)-an excitatory form of neurostimulation-on learning. We examined the E/I as a potential mechanism and studied whether tRNS effect on learning depends on E/I as measured by the aperiodic exponent as its putative marker. In addition to manipulating E/I using tRNS, we also manipulated the level of learning (learning/overlearning) that has been shown to influence E/I. Participants (n = 102) received either sham stimulation or 20-minute tRNS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) during a mathematical learning task. We showed that tRNS increased E/I, as reflected by the aperiodic exponent, and that lower E/I predicted greater benefit from tRNS specifically for the learning task. In contrast to previous magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS)-based E/I studies, we found no effect of the level of learning on E/I. A further analysis using a different data set suggest that both measures of E/I (EEG versus MRS) may reflect, at least partly, different biological mechanisms. Our results highlight the role of E/I as a marker for neurostimulation efficacy and learning. This mechanistic understanding provides better opportunities for augmented learning and personalized interventions.

Previous research has highlighted the role of the excitation/inhibition (E/I) ratio for typical and atypical development, mental health, cognition, and learning. Other research has highlighted the benefits of high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS)—an excitatory form of neurostimulation—on learning. We examined the E/I as a potential mechanism and studied whether tRNS effect on learning depends on E/I as measured by the aperiodic exponent as its putative marker. In addition to manipulating E/I using tRNS, we also manipulated the level of learning (learning/overlearning) that has been shown to influence E/I. Participants (n = 102) received either sham stimulation or 20-minute tRNS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) during a mathematical learning task. We showed that tRNS increased E/I, as reflected by the aperiodic exponent, and that lower E/I predicted greater benefit from tRNS specifically for the learning task. In contrast to previous magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS)-based E/I studies, we found no effect of the level of learning on E/I. A further analysis using a different data set suggest that both measures of E/I (EEG versus MRS) may reflect, at least partly, different biological mechanisms. Our results highlight the role of E/I as a marker for neurostimulation efficacy and learning. This mechanistic understanding provides better opportunities for augmented learning and personalized interventions. Previous work has suggested that the excitation/inhibition ratio (E/I) contributes to typical and atypical development, mental health, cognition and learning. This study reveals that the E/I ratio in the brain plays an important role in neurostimulation efficacy and is a possible marker for learning.