Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Psychology has seen a recent explosion in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to understand cognition. The prevalence of techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in published research has grown immensely in the past decade; however, there has been little effort to incorporate these techniques into the undergraduate curriculum through course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs).

Objective

To demonstrate the feasibility of creating a CURE focused on tDCS and to offer practical advice on how to create one at other institutions.

Method

I present a novel undergraduate CURE focused on tDCS, as well as practical advice on how to teach about and safely implement student-driven tDCS experiments.

Results

Undergraduate students learned about and engaged first-hand in their own non-invasive brain stimulation research in an upper-level psychology laboratory course.

Conclusion

An undergraduate laboratory course that focuses on non-invasive brain stimulation has a range of potential benefits for students and instructors alike. Furthermore, it allows undergraduates to gain experience using a rapidly growing neuroscientific methodology.

Teaching Implications

Given that tDCS is a safe and relatively inexpensive method of modulating brain function, the present course demonstrates the ease, and potential advantages, of incorporating NIBS into the undergraduate psychology curriculum.

Keywords

cognitive neuroscience course-based undergraduate research experiences neuroscience education transcranial electrical stimulation

An important goal for undergraduate STEM education is to provide students with research opportunities that will best prepare them to pursue advanced degrees or careers in these fields (Kardash, 2000; Kremer & Bringle, 1990; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012; Russell et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004). In STEM fields, these experiences occur in a variety of formats, including paid and unpaid research opportunities (Hunter et al., 2007; Kardash, 2000; Seymour et al., 2004) as well as course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs; Auchincloss et al., 2014; Chase et al., 2020; Mordacq et al., 2017).

There is a significant body of evidence confirming the specific benefits of CUREs in a range of STEM fields including biology (Brownell et al., 2012), chemistry (Williams & Reddish, 2018), and psychology (Dvorak & Hernandez-Ruiz, 2019; Hernandez-Ruiz & Dvorak, 2020; Sathy et al., 2020). For instance, CUREs lead to an increased interest in pursuing graduate school and careers in science (Corwin et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2011). They result in higher information literacy as well as increased understanding of the processes of science (Lloyd et al., 2019). Such experiences lead to improved communication skills (Seymour et al., 2004) and conceptual understanding (Shaffer et al., 2010; Ward et al., 2014). They also create a fuller sense of project ownership (Hanauer et al., 2012) and a greater interest in laboratory exercises (Brodl, 2005). Finally, the opportunity to engage in course-based research leads to greater diversity and inclusivity in STEM disciplines (Bangera & Brownell, 2014; Barlow & Villarejo, 2004; Jones et al., 2010; Nagda et al., 1998; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Theobald et al., 2020). There are also documented benefits to faculty who engage in CUREs including strengthening the connection between an instructor’s teaching and research, student projects that result in peer-reviewed publications, and positive evaluation of such teaching opportunities in the tenure and promotion process (Shortlidge et al., 2016).

Course-based undergraduate research experiences have become increasingly common in several branches of neuroscience (Himmel et al., 2020; Thibodeau, 2011); however, fields such as cognitive neuroscience pose unique challenges for undergraduate involvement, especially in course-based research opportunities (Hauk, 2020; Steinmetz & Atapattu, 2010). One of the difficulties relates to the fact that the most common research methodologies in cognitive neuroscience (e.g., functional brain imaging techniques such as fMRI and electrophysiological technique such as EEG) are not only expensive, but often require extended support systems that may not be available at primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs). Nevertheless, introducing students to research in this field is critical for preparing the next generation of cognitive neuroscientists.

Despite these challenges, educators have been able to incorporate cognitive neuroscientific methodologies into the undergraduate curriculum, either in simulated (Hurd & Vincent, 2006; Illert et al., 1992; Miller et al., 2008; Mirrione et al., 2014) or actual (de Wit et al., 2017; Nyhus & Curtis, 2016; Wilson, 2006) research experiences involving techniques such as EEG, PET, and fMRI. However, new techniques for understanding the neural basis of cognition are constantly being introduced. For instance, an important methodological development in cognitive neuroscience has been the advent of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS; Polanía et al., 2018; Wagner et al., 2007). This group of techniques involves delivering relatively low levels of magnetic pulses or electrical current through the scalp in order to modulate brain function in a temporary manner. The precise method of brain modulation can take a variety of forms, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Transcranial direct current stimulation involves the delivery of weak electrical currents (typically in the 1–2 mA range) through saline-soaked sponges positioned over the scalp. Current enters the body through an anodal electrode, which results in a localized increase in neuronal excitability and leaves the body through a separate cathodal electrode, which results in a localized decrease in neuronal excitability (Nitsche & Paulus, 2000). The changes in neuronal excitability typically persist beyond the end of stimulation for a period of minutes to hours, and several recent reviews have confirmed that the technique is a safe and effective method of transiently modulating brain function in a research environment (Bikson et al., 2016; Buchanan et al., 2021; Nikolin et al., 2018).

The use of tDCS in psychological and neuroscientific research has exploded in the last decade. A keyword search of peer-reviewed articles indexed in the MEDLINE database reveals that the terms “tDCS” and “transcranial direct current stimulation” increased by an order of magnitude over the past decade, increasing from 71 publications in 2010 to 820 publications in 2020. Undergraduate teaching resources have also documented this growth. For instance, the three most widely used undergraduate cognitive neuroscience textbooks (Banich & Compton, 2018; Gazzaniga et al., 2018; Ward, 2019) all highlight tDCS as a significant area of increased coverage in their most recent editions, recognizing the growing prominence of this technique within the field.

Despite the increased prevalence of NIBS (and tDCS in particular) within the field of cognitive neuroscience, there has been little effort to incorporate this important new technique into CUREs. In this paper, I describe an advanced undergraduate laboratory course using tDCS that I have successfully implemented at Gettysburg College. The course was a modified version of the fMRI laboratory course that I previously taught (Wilson, 2006), but focused on introducing students to the theoretical and technical basis of non-invasive brain stimulation, and then allowed them to apply this knowledge by designing and implementing their own tDCS projects in small groups. To my knowledge, this is the first CURE using non-invasive brain stimulation to date and demonstrates the feasibility of introducing hands-on NIBS research to the undergraduate psychology and neuroscience curricula.

Course Overview

I implemented this laboratory course in tDCS as a capstone option for Psychology majors at Gettysburg College, a small liberal-arts college in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Psychology majors at Gettysburg take two advanced laboratory courses that focus on different subfields in psychology (e.g., developmental psychology, cultural psychology, and in this case, cognitive neuroscience) as their capstone experience. All of the capstone courses focus on the design and implementation of original, student-driven research using discipline-specific methodologies in small groups (typically in groups of 2–3 students).

Course Objectives

The course had four main objectives, namely, (1) to review, analyze, and critique a number of primary research articles spanning multiple methodologies within cognitive neuroscience, (2) to learn about and implement the various steps involved in tDCS research, (3) to reflect on and extend the results of previous empirical research within an area of cognitive neuroscience (using tDCS), and (4) to prepare a manuscript and poster presentation in order to communicate the results of an empirical research project. These objectives are fairly consistent across all of our advanced laboratory courses, namely, to discuss primary literature in a specific subfield and to design and implement original research and then communicate the results of that research using communication standards of the field (i.e., APA-style manuscripts and posters).

Course Prerequisites and Enrollment

Enrollment in each advanced laboratory courses at Gettysburg College is capped at 12 students and these courses share a common prerequisite structure, including Introductory Psychology, a mid-level content course in the relevant subfield (e.g., Cognitive Neuroscience), Statistics, and Experimental Methods. At the time this course was taught, students needed to earn a grade of C or better in Statistics and Methods courses to enroll in any advanced laboratory courses. (The departmental grade requirement for Methods has subsequently been dropped.) Also, there were no restrictions concerning how recently students completed the pre-requisites prior to enrolling in this course. Consequently, there was some variability in terms of when students completed the prerequisite courses. For instance, all of the enrolled students completed Methods either one or two semesters immediately preceding this course. In contrast, students completed Cognitive Neuroscience either in the same academic year, the previous academic year, or in one case two academic years prior to this course.

Course Format

The format of the course closely paralleled the fMRI advanced laboratory course that I have described previously (Wilson, 2006). The course met each week for two 75-minute lecture sessions as well as one three-hour laboratory session. Lecture sessions consisted of a mixture of classes devoted to learning the theoretical and neurophysiological basis of tDCS, as well as classes devoted to reading empirical research articles that employed tDCS to examine specific cognitive processes. Laboratory sessions during the first half of the semester focused on the theoretical and technical bases of conducting tDCS research. During the second half of the semester, those sessions allowed students to design and implement an empirical research project (including data collection and statistical analyses). Materials used in the course, including the full syllabus and examples of video lectures and online learning resources are available online (Wilson, 2021)

Primary Readings

Readings fell into two broad categories: (1) articles focused on tDCS methodology, including the neuromodulatory basis of tDCS (e.g., Nitsche & Paulus, 2000), safety issues (e.g., Bikson et al., 2016), and electrode placement (e.g., DaSilva et al., 2011), and (2) empirical research articles covering a range of topics within cognitive neuroscience (many of which employed tDCS) including working memory (e.g., Berryhill et al., 2010), emotion (e.g., Hortensius et al., 2012), attention (e.g., Schweid et al., 2008), and language (e.g., Flöel et al., 2008). A more extensive list of potential readings is available online (Wilson, 2021) and can be tailored to a prospective instructor’s target audience and course goals.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Hardware

A range of tDCS hardware is available to instructors who would like to incorporate this technology into their courses. Professional-grade systems such as the Activadose II system (https://activatekinc.com/) can cost as little as $400 and are used routinely in neuroscientific research (e.g., Foroughi et al., 2015; Nejati et al., 2021). More expensive systems typically offer additional features such as greater control over sham stimulation, programming modes that allow for double-blinding, and more precise control over current delivery. Mid-range options such as the TCT Research stimulator (https://www.trans-cranial.com/) cost approximately $1000, whereas high-end systems such as the Soterix 1x1 tDCS system (www.soterixmedical.com) can cost upward of $6000. After the initial investment in the tDCS hardware, there are a few ongoing consumable costs, namely, batteries to power the system, saline solution, and disposable sponges that house the stimulating electrodes. Each participant in a tDCS study therefore results in an additional $2–5 in consumables, regardless of the system that is purchased. For this course, I used a Soterix Medical 1x1 tDCS system; however, even the most basic professional-grade system will work well for the purposes of a course-based introduction to non-invasive brain stimulation. As such, an instructor who is not already engaged in tDCS research could realistically develop such an experience after an initial, one-time investment of as little as $500 for the main hardware, with very modest expenditures related to consumables beyond that.

Empirical Research Projects

Students conducted novel research projects using tDCS over the course of the semester in small, self-selected groups (2–3 students per group). Small groups were necessary in part because students needed to share tDCS equipment and laboratory space. Other instructors might prefer larger group sizes or may be able to accommodate a larger number of simultaneous projects, but the need to share tDCS hardware, space, and trained personnel to oversee sessions will most likely be a limiting factor in how many simultaneous projects can be implemented. Each group met with me weekly throughout the semester to discuss their project and to design and implement their study. In all cases, students prepared and submitted an IRB application based on their project and conducted behavioral piloting (without brain stimulation) before implementing the tDCS version of their project. Each group created or acquired their own materials (visual stimuli, surveys, etc.), recruited and screened all participants, implemented their experiment, and analyzed all behavioral data. Students recruited their participants through campus advertising and social media. Participants did not receive monetary compensation for these studies, but in some cases, they were offered a nominal reward (e.g., a candy bar) as a token of appreciation for their time.

I, or a trained research technician from my laboratory, worked with each student group to screen participants, schedule sessions, deliver all electrical stimulation with the tDCS system (i.e., students in the class did not position the electrodes or deliver the electrical current without me or a trained research technician), and conduct post-stimulation symptom interviews to assess any potential adverse effects of tDCS. The students were therefore present and actively engaged during all tDCS sessions to implement the behavioral tasks associated with their project and to participate in the screening, tDCS delivery, and post-stimulation safety protocols. Examples of these safety screening and adverse effect questionnaires are available online (Wilson, 2021) and can easily be modified to accommodate an instructor’s specific needs.

Students were free to choose a topic within cognitive neuroscience that interested them. Their goal was to find existing research that examined the neural basis of a cognitive process using functional brain imaging or non-invasive brain stimulation and then to think of a novel way to extend that result using tDCS. In all cases, students were encouraged to apply commonly used experimental logic for designing tDCS research, for instance, attempting to establish a causal link between brain activity and a cognitive process that has been correlated in past research, assessing the effects of tDCS stimulation montage on a previously documented relationship between brain and behavior, or determining the effects of stimulation polarity (anodal vs. cathodal) on the direction of a previously established relationship between brain activity and cognition.

Student projects took a variety of forms, for instance, one group attempted to establish a causal link between medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) activity and prosocial behavior (Masten et al., 2011). More specifically, they trained raters to assess the degree of “prosocial” content in emails that were generated by participants who received either anodal or sham tDCS stimulation. Another group attempted to replicate a previous tDCS study of coordinate processing (England et al., 2015) to determine if the previously observed improvements in spatial memory relied on bilateral posterior parietal cortex (PPC) stimulation, or if unilateral stimulation to either hemisphere would produce the same effects. They asked participants to remember the locations of everyday objects embedded in scenes and then assessed differences in spatial memory using the original bilateral stimulation (anodal left; cathodal right), as well as unilateral stimulation (left anodal alone and right cathodal alone).

Discussion

The tDCS laboratory course that I describe here offers a novel approach to introducing undergraduate students to cognitive neuroscience research using non-invasive brain stimulation. The course adds to a growing body of evidence on the effectiveness of offering CUREs involving cognitive neuroscientific methodologies, including functional brain imaging, electroencephalography, and electrophysiology (de Wit et al., 2017; Thibodeau, 2011; Wilson, 2006). This course would make a significant contribution to any undergraduate neuroscience curriculum and would allow instructors and students to develop a working knowledge of a rapidly growing technique for understanding the neural basis of cognition.

Student evaluations were overwhelmingly positive. Many students reported that this course required more time and effort than any of their other courses to date, but that this was also the most fulfilling. Example comments included “This class did spark an interest in research that I didn’t think I would have had without taking the course,” “One of my favorite classes at Gettysburg,” “I am more likely to read neuro [science] articles for fun,” and “Working with tDCS is great because it’s new and interesting. I may never get to do it again, so I think it was a great opportunity.” In light of the very small sample size, and the inability to directly compare learning outcomes for this course with other non-tDCS courses, it is important to recognize that this evidence is anecdotal, and that additional work is needed to quantify the potential benefits of a tDCS laboratory course relative to other neuroscience-based CUREs.

Despite the potential benefits of a tDCS laboratory course, there are several potential limitations that must be noted. One relates to the cost of developing and implementing such a course. Conducting tDCS research does require an initial hardware investment that can be cost-prohibitive for some individual faculty or institutions. However, tDCS systems cost significantly less than other commonly used research methodologies in cognitive neuroscience such as fMRI and EEG and therefore are much easier to acquire, especially for researchers at PUIs. Moreover, for instructors who are already engaged in tDCS research, the added costs of implementing this technology into a CURE are minimal.

A second concern of implementing such a course relates to the safety of tDCS. A wide range of review and meta-analyses confirm that tDCS is a safe and effective method of modulating brain function (Bikson et al., 2016; Buchanan et al., 2021; Nikolin et al., 2018) if researchers adhere to accepted protocols concerning the recruitment of participants, the delivery of stimulation, and the monitoring of potential adverse effects (AEs). Course instructors, graduate students, research/teaching assistants, etc. can all oversee the implementation of tDCS research after receiving basic safety training. Such training typically involves reading and reviewing several articles concerning the mechanisms and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation, shadowing an experienced tDCS researcher, and then having the trainee conduct their own supervised sessions with feedback. Such a program only requires a few weeks and does not involve any additional costs. Alternatively, a small number of fee-based training courses exist, both online (e.g., https://lms.neurocademy.com/courses/an-introduction-to-tdcs/) and in-person; however, the COVID-19 pandemic has halted many of these in-person training workshops. If the personnel overseeing the process at each stage have received adequate training and adhere to standard operating procedures (Antal et al., 2017), then there should not be any significant concerns related to incorporating this form of NIBS into the undergraduate curriculum.

One final limitation worth mentioning relates to the fact that there is still considerable debate about the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognition, in general. Several recent reviews (Horvath et al., 2015; Medina & Cason, 2017) suggest that the modulatory effects of tDCS on cognition are modest and that such effects are often difficult to replicate given the typically small sample sizes used in such studies (Minarik et al., 2016). As a result, a course-based research experience involving tDCS, which will likely be under-powered, may be more likely to generate false negative results compared to other neuroscientific research methodologies.

In summary, an advanced undergraduate laboratory course in tDCS is possible and has the potential to provide students with a novel method of engaging directly in cognitive neuroscience research using an important, and increasingly more common, methodology. Students in this course designed and conducted original tDCS research under close supervision and while additional work is necessary to formally assess the benefits of this experience on student learning, their evaluations provided anecdotal evidence suggesting that it was a positive experience. For undergraduate instructors, particularly those at PUIs, this might represent a cost-effective method of engaging students directly in cognitive neuroscience research within the undergraduate curriculum.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kevin D. Wilson

Open Practices

This article has received badge for Open Materials. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at

References

Antal

Alekseichuk

Bikson

Brockmöller

Brunoni

A. R.

Chen

Cohen

L. G.

Dowthwaite

Ellrich

Flöel

Fregni

George

M. S.

Hamilton

Haueisen

Herrmann

C. S.

Hummel

F. C.

Lefaucheur

J. P.

Liebetanz

Loo

C. K.

McCaig

C. D.

Paulus

(2017). Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clinical Neurophysiology, 128(9), 1774–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001

Auchincloss

L. C.

Laursen

S. L.

Branchaw

J. L.

Eagan

Graham

Hanauer

D. I.

Lawrie

McLinn

C. M.

Pelaez

Rowland

Towns

Trautmann

N. M.

Varma-Nelson

Weston

T. J.

Dolan

E. L.

(2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004

Bangera

Brownell

S. E.

(2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 602–606. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099

Banich

M. T.

Compton

R. J.

(2018). Cognitive neuroscience (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316664018.

Barlow

A. E.

Villarejo

(2004). Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational enrichment program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20029

Berryhill

M. E.

Wencil

E. B.

Branch Coslett

Olson

I. R.

(2010). A selective working memory impairment after transcranial direct current stimulation to the right parietal lobe. Neuroscience Letters, 479(3), 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.05.087

Bikson

Grossman

Thomas

Zannou

A. L.

Jiang

Adnan

Mourdoukoutas

A. P.

Kronberg

Truong

Boggio

(2016). Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimulation, 9(5), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.004

Brodl

M. R.

(2005). Tapping recent alumni for the development of cutting-edge, investigative teaching laboratory experiments. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 31(1), 13–20.

Brownell

S. E.

Kloser

M. J.

Fukami

Shavelson

(2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 36–45.

10.

Buchanan

D. M.

Bogdanowicz

Khanna

Lockman-Dufour

Robaey

D’Angiulli

(2021). Systematic review on the safety and tolerability of transcranial direct current stimulation in children and adolescents. Brain Sciences, 11(2), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020212

11.

Chase

McMurray

Stavnezer

A. J.

Buffalari

Fernandes

J. J.

Lom

Morrison

M. E.

(2020). Integrating research into the undergraduate curriculum: 3. Research training in the upper-level neuroscience curriculum. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 19(1), A75–A88.

12.

Corwin

L. A.

Graham

M. J.

Dolan

E. L.

(2015). Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167

13.

DaSilva

A. F.

Volz

M. S.

Bikson

Fregni

(2011). Electrode positioning and montage in transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 51(51), e2744. https://doi.org/10.3791/2744

14.

de Wit

Badcock

N. A.

Grootswagers

Hardwick

Teichmann

Wehrman

Williams

Kaplan

D. M.

(2017). Neurogaming technology meets neuroscience education: A cost-effective, scalable, and highly portable undergraduate teaching laboratory for neuroscience. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 15(2), A104–A109.

15.

Dvorak

A. L.

Hernandez-Ruiz

(2019). Outcomes of a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) for music therapy and music education students. Journal of Music Therapy, 56(1), 30–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thy020

16.

England

H. B.

Fyock

Meredith Gillis

Hampstead

B. M.

(2015). Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates spatial memory in cognitively intact adults. Behavioural Brain Research, 283, 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.01.044

17.

Flöel

Rösser

Michka

Knecht

Breitenstein

(2008). Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(8), 1415–1422. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20098

18.

Foroughi

C. K.

Blumberg

E. J.

Parasuraman

(2015). Activation and inhibition of posterior parietal cortex have bi-directional effects on spatial errors following interruptions. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00245

19.

Gazzaniga

M. S.

Ivry

R. B.

Mangun

G. R.

(2018). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of mind (5th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

20.

Hanauer

D. I.

Frederick

Fotinakes

Strobel

S. A.

(2012). Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 378–385. https://10.1187/cbe.12-04-0043

21.

Harrison

Dunbar

Ratmansky

Boyd

Lopatto

(2011). Classroom-based science research at the introductory level: Changes in career choices and attitude. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-12-0151

22.

Hauk

(2020). Human cognitive neuroscience as it is taught. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 587922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587922

23.

Hernandez-Ruiz

Dvorak

A. L.

(2020). Replication of a course-based undergraduate research experience for music students. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 29(4), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/08098131.2020.1737186

24.

Himmel

N. J.

Letcher

J. M.

Cox

D. N.

(2020). Dissecting the molecular and neural circuit bases of behavior as an introduction to discovery-driven research; A report on a course-based undergraduate research experience. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 19(1), A21–A28.

25.

Hortensius

Schutter

D. J.

Harmon-Jones

(2012). When anger leads to aggression: Induction of relative left frontal cortical activity with transcranial direct current stimulation increases the anger-aggression relationship. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(3), 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr012

26.

Horvath

J. C.

Forte

J. D.

Carter

(2015). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation, 8(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.400

27.

Hunter

Laursen

S. L.

Seymour

(2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173

28.

Hurd

M. W.

Vincent

D. J.

(2006). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): A brief exercise for an undergraduate laboratory course. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 5(1), A22–A27.

29.

Illert

Wiese

Wolfram

(1992). Electroencephalography and evoked potentials: A PC-based analysis program for laboratory courses in physiology. The American Journal of Physiology, 263(6), S16–S22. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.1992.263.6.S16

30.

Jones

M. T.

Barlow

A. E.

Villarejo

(2010). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0082

31.

Kardash

C. M.

(2000). Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.191

32.

Kremer

J. F.

Bringle

R. G.

(1990). The effects of an intensive research experience on the careers of talented undergraduates. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 24(1), 1–5.

33.

Lloyd

S. A.

Shanks

R. A.

Lopatto

(2019). Perceived student benefits of an undergraduate physiological psychology laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 46(3), 215–222. https://10.1177/0098628319853935

34.

Masten

C. L.

Morelli

S. A.

Eisenberger

N. I.

(2011). An fMRI investigation of empathy for ‘social pain’ and subsequent prosocial behavior. Neuroimage, 55(1), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.060

35.

Medina

Cason

(2017). No evidential value in samples of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies of cognition and working memory in healthy populations. Cortex, 94, 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.06.021

36.

Miller

B. R.

Troyer

Busey

(2008). Virtual EEG: A software-based electroencephalogram designed for undergraduate neuroscience-related courses. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 7(1), A19–A25.

37.

Minarik

Berger

Althaus

Bader

Biebl

Brotzeller

Fusban

Hegemann

Jesteadt

Kalweit

Leitner

Linke

Nabielska

Reiter

Schmitt

Spraetz

Sauseng

(2016). The importance of sample size for reproducibility of tDCS effects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(81), 453. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00453

38.

Mirrione

M. M.

Ruth

Alexoff

Logan

Fowler

Kernan

(2014). Positron emission tomography (PET) and graphical kinetic data analysis of the dopamine neurotransmitter system: An exercise for an undergraduate laboratory course. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(2), A114–A122.

39.

Mordacq

J. C.

Drane

D. L.

Swarat

S. L.

S. M.

(2017). Development of course-based undergraduate research experiences using a design-based approach. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(4), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_046_04_64

40.

Nagda

B. A.

Gregerman

S. R.

Jonides

von Hippel

Lerner

J. S.

(1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0016.

41.

Nejati

Majdi

Salehinejad

M. A.

Nitsche

M. A.

(2021). The role of dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in the processing of emotional dimensions. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81454-7

42.

Nikolin

Huggins

Martin

Alonzo

Loo

C. K.

(2018). Safety of repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation: A systematic review. Brain Stimulation, 11(2), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2017.10.020

43.

Nitsche

M. A.

Paulus

(2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal of Physiology, 527(3), 633–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x

44.

Nyhus

Curtis

(2016). Incorporating an ERP project into undergraduate instruction. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 14(2), A91–A96.

45.

Polanía

Nitsche

M. A.

Ruff

C. C.

(2018). Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain stimulation. Nature Neuroscience, 21(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-017-0054-4

46.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf.

47.

Rodenbusch

S. E.

Hernandez

P. R.

Simmons

S. L.

Dolan

E. L.

(2016). Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117

48.

Russell

S. H.

Hancock

M. P.

McCullough

(2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548–549. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384

49.

Sathy

Strauss

C. L.

Nasiri

Panter

A. T.

Hogan

K. A.

Hutson

B. L.

(2020). Cultivating inclusive research experiences through course-based curriculum. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000215

50.

Schweid

Rushmore

R. J.

Valero-Cabré

(2008). Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on posterior parietal cortex disrupts visuo-spatial processing in the contralateral visual field. Experimental Brain Research, 186(3), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1245-0

51.

Seymour

Hunter

Laursen

S. L.

DeAntoni

(2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three‐year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131

52.

Shaffer

C. D.

Alvarez

Bailey

Barnard

Bhalla

Chandrasekaran

Chung

Dorer

D. R.

(2010). The genomics education partnership: Successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1187/09-11-0087

53.

Shortlidge

E. E.

Bangera

Brownell

S. E.

(2016). Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. Bioscience, 66(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv167

54.

Steinmetz

K. M.

Atapattu

R. K.

(2010). Meeting the challenge of preparing undergraduates for careers in cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 9(1), A36–A42.

55.

Theobald

E. J.

Hill

M. J.

Tran

Agrawal

Arroyo

E. N.

Behling

Chambwe

Cintron

D. L.

Cooper

J. D.

Dunster

Grummer

J. A.

Hennessey

Hsiao

Iranon

Jones

Jordt

Keller

Lacey

M. E.

Littlefield

C. E.

Freeman

(2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students inss undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117

56.

Thibodeau

(2011). Design and implementation of an undergraduate laboratory course in psychophysiology. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 259–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311421325

57.

Wagner

Valero-Cabre

Pascual-Leone

(2007). Noninvasive human brain stimulation. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 9, 527–565. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.061206.133100

58.

Ward

J. R.

Clarke

H. D.

Horton

J. L.

(2014). Effects of a research-infused botanical curriculum on undergraduates’ content knowledge, STEM competencies, and attitudes toward plant sciences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0231

59.

Ward

(2019). The student’s guide to cognitive neuroscience (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351035187.

60.

Williams

L. C.

Reddish

M. J.

(2018). Integrating primary research into the teaching lab: Benefits and impacts of a one-semester CURE for physical chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(6), 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00855

61.

Wilson

K. D.

(2006). Implementing an undergraduate laboratory course in functional magnetic resonance imaging. Teaching of Psychology, 33(4), 268–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3304_7

62.

Wilson

K. D.

(2021). Integrating non-invasive brain stimulation into the undergraduate psychology curriculum. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZK39X.

Integrating Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Into the Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum: An Upper-Level Laboratory Course Using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Abstract

Background

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Teaching Implications

Keywords

Course Overview

Course Objectives

Course Prerequisites and Enrollment

Course Format

Primary Readings

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Hardware

Empirical Research Projects

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Open Practices

References