Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Overview of our study design (A), the spatial distribution and magnitude of the normal components of HD-tDCS-induced electric fields, representing currents either entering or leaving the cerebral cortex (depicted with positive and negative values, respectively), averaged across 18 head models of healthy adults (B), trial structure (C), and card types with feedback values (D).
- Figure 2.
Ratings (means and SEs) of perceived success (A) and outcome controllability (B) following each block.
- Figure 3.
Changes in the magnitude of the PPI (means and SEs) across the two blocks and four experimental groups (A), and Cumming estimation plots showing effect size estimates (Cohen’s d) for three comparisons against a shared control condition (HighControl-Sham group) for block 1 (B) and block 2 (C). Mean differences are presented as black dots, along with the corresponding bootstrap sampling distributions (5000 samples) and the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CIs (black bars). Raw data and Cumming estimation plots related to changes from block 1 to block 2 for each group are presented in Extended Data Figure 3-1.
- Figure 4.
Response accuracy (means and SEs) in each block and experimental group (A). Data corresponding to accuracy for each card type, block and group are presented in Extended Data Figure 4-1. Cumming estimation plots representing effect size estimates (Cohen’s d) for the pairwise comparison of block-effects between groups receiving real versus sham HD-tDCS, calculated separately for HighControl and LowControl groups are shown in B. Mean differences are presented as black dots, along with the corresponding bootstrap sampling distributions (5000 samples) and the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CIs (black bars). Raw data and Cumming estimation plots related to changes from block 1 to block 2 for each group are presented in Extended Data Figure 4-2. Changes in response accuracy (means and SEs) corresponding to the four groups and Pavlovian-conflict versus Pavlovian-congruent cards are plotted separately for Avoid and Win cards (C). Extended Data Figure 4-3 shows the same interaction between card valence, Pavlovian congruency and group, plotted separately for the two blocks. Extended Data Figure 4-4 shows the percentage of Go responses (PercGo) separately for each card, group and experimental block.
- Figure 5.
Results from computational modeling. Posterior densities for estimates for the regression coefficients for PB (parameter π; A), learning rate (parameter α; B), temperature/randomness of choice (parameter β; C), and Go-bias (parameter bgo; D).
Tables
- Table 1
Statistical results for the comparison of questionnaire data and cognitive tests between the four experimental groups
Baseline measures Group effect F df p ηp2 PANAS-Pa-Pos 0.43 3,99 0.731 0.013 PANAS-Pa-Neg 0.17 3,99 0.916 0.005 BIS/BAS 0.49 3,99 0.691 0.015 BHS 0.46 3,99 0.710 0.014 OSPAN 0.14 3,96 0.933 0.004 BIS/BAS: behavioral inhibition/approach system; BHS: Beck hopelessness scale; OSPAN: operation span task; PANAS-Pa-Neg: negative past mood scores on the positive and negative affect schedule; PANAS-Pa-Pos: positive past mood scores on the positive and negative affect schedule.
- Table 2
Statistical results for the comparison of questionnaire data and subjective ratings between the four experimental groups and the repeated measurements
Group effect Block effect Block × group interaction F df p ηp2 F df p ηp2 F df p ηp2 PANAS-Pr-Pos 0.37 3,98 0.820 0.009 23.99 1,98 <0.001 0.197 1.75 3,98 0.162 0.05 PANAS-Pr-Neg 0.61 3,98 0.611 0.018 10.99 1,98 0.001 0.101 1.33 3,98 0.267 0.04 Success rating 0.12 3,98 0.949 0.004 12.27 1,98 <0.001 0.111 2.39 3,98 0.073 0.07 Control rating 0.81 3,98 0.488 0.024 0.80 1,98 0.373 0.008 0.81 3,98 0.492 0.024 PANAS-Pr-Neg: negative momentary mood scores on the positive and negative affect schedule; PANAS-Pr-Pos: positive momentary mood scores on the positive and negative affect schedule. Significant (p < 0.05) effects are highlighted with bold.
Extended Data Figure 3-1
Raw data (upper panel) showing changes in the PPI from block 1 to block 2 for each participant, and Cumming estimation plots (lower panel) representing effect size estimates (Cohen’s d) for the change in response accuracy from block 1 to block 2, plotted separately for the four groups. Mean differences are presented as dots, along with the corresponding bootstrap sampling distributions (5000 samples) and the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CIs. Download Figure 3-1, TIF file.
Extended Data Figure 4-1
Response accuracy (means and SEs) across the two blocks and four experimental groups, plotted separately for the four card types. Download Figure 4-1, TIF file.
Extended Data Figure 4-2
Raw data (upper panel) showing changes in response accuracy from block 1 to block 2 for each participant, and Cumming estimation plots (lower panel) representing effect size estimates (Cohen’s d) for the change in response accuracy from block 1 to block 2, plotted separately for the four groups. Mean differences are presented as dots, along with the corresponding bootstrap sampling distributions (5000 samples) and the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CIs. Download Figure 4-2, TIF file.
Extended Data Figure 4-3
Response accuracy for Pavlovian-congruent and conflict cards, plotted separately for Win and Avoid cards for block 1 (A) and block 2 (B). Please note that the concept of Pavlovian congruency cannot be interpreted in block 1 for the LowControl groups, as it just reflects the arbitrary labeling of the two Win cards as Go-to-Win and NoGo-to-Win, without underlying response-feedback contingency that could drive cue-response learning. Download Figure 4-3, TIF file.
Extended Data Figure 4-4
Percentage of Go responses (PercGo) for Pavlovian-congruent and conflict cards, plotted separately for Win and Avoid cards for block 1 (A) and block 2 (B). Please note that the concept of Pavlovian congruency cannot be interpreted in block 1 for the LowControl groups, as it just reflects the arbitrary labeling of the two Win cards as Go-to-Win and NoGo-to-Win, without underlying response-feedback contingency that could drive cue-response learning. Download Figure 4-4, TIF file.
In this issue
