Combining proactive transcranial stimulation and cardiac biofeedback to substantially manage harmful stress effects
Fiche du document
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.62b876...
- hal: hal-04772882
- doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.019
- PUBMED: 34438047
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.019
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/34438047
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
Anticipatory stress Biofeedback Brain stimulation Coping Executive functions Heart-rate variabilitySujets proches
Control systems, Biological Biological cybernetics Biocybernetics Control theory in biology Biofeedback Regulation, Biological Biological regulation Control biophysicsCiter ce document
Sophie Schlatter et al., « Combining proactive transcranial stimulation and cardiac biofeedback to substantially manage harmful stress effects », HAL SHS (Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société), ID : 10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.019
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Background: Previous studies have identified the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) as a core region in cognitive emotional regulation. Transcranial direct current stimulations of the dlPFC (tDCS) and heartrate variability biofeedback (BFB) are known to regulate emotional processes. However, the effect of these interventions applied either alone or concomitantly during an anticipatory stress remains unexplored.Objective: The study investigated the effect of anodal tDCS and BFB, alone or combined, on psychophysiological stress responses and cognitive functioning. Methods: Following a stress anticipation induction, 80 participants were randomized into four groups and subjected to a 15-min intervention: neutral video viewing (CTRL), left dlPFC anodal tDCS (TDCS), heartrate variability biofeedback (BFB), or a combined treatment (BFB þ TDCS). Participants were then immediately confronted with the stressor, which was followed by an assessment of executive functions. Psychophysiological stress responses were assessed throughout the experiment (heart rate, heart-rate variability, salivary cortisol). Results: The TDCS did not modulate stress responses. Compared with both CTRL and TDCS interventions, BFB reduced physiological stress and improved executive functions after the stressor. The main finding revealed that BFB þ TDCS was the most effective intervention, yielding greater reduction in psychological and physiological stress responses than BFB. Conclusions: Combining preventive tDCS with BFB is a relevant interventional approach to reduce psychophysiological stress responses, hence offering a new and non-invasive treatment of stress-related disorders. Biofeedback may be particularly useful for preparing for an important stressful event when performance is decisive.
