Jana Klaus
@janakl4us.bsky.social
Experimental psychologist @UniUtrecht. Language, cerebellum, brain stimulation, EEG in all its permutations. Still never not confused by double negatives.
That said, null findings in an HD-tDCS study, as well as the null findings from the Liebrand study, where the montage was adapted to focally target M1 with two electrodes, sound more convincing to me, but those are just my two cents :)
October 13, 2025 at 12:30 PM
That said, null findings in an HD-tDCS study, as well as the null findings from the Liebrand study, where the montage was adapted to focally target M1 with two electrodes, sound more convincing to me, but those are just my two cents :)
Many possible reasons: Electrode size, current intensity, stim duration, online/offline; experimenter bias, p-hacking, publication bias. I'm not saying that your study is wrong and the others are right, I just wonder why this obvious confound isn't avoided if you want to modulate M1 excitability.
October 13, 2025 at 12:30 PM
Many possible reasons: Electrode size, current intensity, stim duration, online/offline; experimenter bias, p-hacking, publication bias. I'm not saying that your study is wrong and the others are right, I just wonder why this obvious confound isn't avoided if you want to modulate M1 excitability.
Important work, but why did you put the return electrode over Fp2? By now we know from simulation work that this type of montage induces a massive E-field essentially covering the entire (pre)frontal cortex, which could potentially mask actual effects.
October 11, 2025 at 11:43 AM
Important work, but why did you put the return electrode over Fp2? By now we know from simulation work that this type of montage induces a massive E-field essentially covering the entire (pre)frontal cortex, which could potentially mask actual effects.
Fail them. Going to a NiN concert and not getting that reference is shameful.
August 28, 2025 at 9:05 AM
Fail them. Going to a NiN concert and not getting that reference is shameful.