Premium
The Critical Role of Individual Trait Differences in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Outcomes: Effects in a Sample with Non Binge‐Eating Obesity
Author(s) -
Ray Mary Katherine,
Sylvester Maria Dani,
Osborn Lauren,
Helms Joel,
Turan Bulent,
Boggiano Mary
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.643.5
Subject(s) - food craving , transcranial direct current stimulation , craving , appetite , dorsolateral prefrontal cortex , psychology , binge eating , population , clinical psychology , emotional eating , obesity , barratt impulsiveness scale , ventromedial prefrontal cortex , affect (linguistics) , medicine , impulsivity , eating disorders , psychiatry , cognition , prefrontal cortex , stimulation , eating behavior , environmental health , addiction , neuroscience , communication
Background Obesity is a major public health concern and effective treatments for the disease are lacking. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non‐invasive, neuromodulation technique that reduces food craving and consumption, especially when using a right‐anode/left‐cathode (RA/LC) montage targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Despite the implications of these findings to treat frank (non‐binge‐eating) obesity, no study has tested RA/LC tDCS on this population. Moreover, most tDCS studies on appetite have not considered the potential influence of sex or of individual differences in psychological traits that are under the control of the DLPFC when evaluating the efficacy of tDCS on appetite variables. Objective This study tested the hypothesis that tDCS reduces food consumption and craving in frank obesity and that sex and individual trait differences influence these effects. Methods N=18 (10F/8M) adults with frank obesity (BMI ≥ 30 with no binge‐eating) completed the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire‐Restraint and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Both have subscales related to cognitive inhibition, a putative functional mechanism underlying tDCS effects on appetite. Participants received 20 minutes of 2mA tDCS and a sham session. Total and preferred‐food consumption was assessed with an in‐lab eating test and craving was assessed with a food photo “wanting” test. Results The effect of tDCS on food consumption or craving did not differ from sham. However, significant differences emerged when sex and psychological trait scores were controlled. tDCS vs. sham reduced food craving in individuals with lower attention‐type impulsiveness (p=0.043), total kilocalories consumed in males with lower non‐planning‐type impulsiveness (p=0.009), and preferred‐food kilocalories consumed in males with lower intent to restrict calories (p=0.024). Conclusion This is the first study to find significant changes in food craving and consumption in a population with frank obesity with the most popular tDCS montage used in appetite studies. The findings also highlight the psychological heterogeneity of individuals with obesity and the importance of identifying these and sex differences in future tDCS studies aimed at treating obesity. Support or Funding Information NIH‐ T32 Pre‐Doctoral training grant to MKR made possible by UAB's Nutrition Obesity Research Center.