Neural Noise

tDCS of SMA and time perception during moving images

3 min read

  • A tDCS study examined supplementary motor area neuromodulation and time perception while watching moving images with different editing styles.1
  • The protocol is methods-relevant for neuromodulation but focused on behavioral/cognitive outcome rather than BCI or neuroprosthetics.1 1

Gardner updates

  • A tDCS study examined SMA neuromodulation and time perception while watching moving images with different editing styles (Frontiers). 1

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

  • The source is a 2025 Frontiers in Human Neuroscience study (Cancer, Balzarotti, Antonietti, D’Aloia & Eugeni; Front. Hum. Neurosci. 19:1595599; doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1595599) framed within a “neurofilmological” approach combining film studies, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience.2 3
  • The sample was 48 undergraduate students aged 21-31 (mean 25.1, SD 2.41, 62.5% female), randomly assigned to anodal, cathodal, or sham tDCS after stratifying by sex and university level; the n = 48 target gave 0.9 power for a 3x3 mixed ANOVA at an effect size of Cohen’s f = 0.25.2 3
  • Stimulation delivered 1.5 mA for 20 min via a battery-driven BrainStim stimulator, with a 5x5 cm electrode (current density 0.06 mA/cm^2) placed 1.8 cm anterior to Cz over the SMA and a 7x5 cm extracephalic reference on the right upper arm; sham ramped down to 0 mA after a few seconds.2 3
  • Participants viewed nine silent clips (drinking water, cutting bread, moving objects) each edited three ways with fixed real duration per action (13.5 s, 11 s, 11 s): master shot (no cuts), slow-paced (four match-on-action cuts), and fast-paced (10-12 cuts imitating intensified continuity), then rated perceived duration (1-30 s), time passage, and action speed (9-point scales).2 3
  • The editing-style-by-tDCS interaction significantly affected duration estimates (F(4,180) = 2.74, p < 0.05, partial eta-squared = 0.11); in the cathodal group fast-paced clips were judged longer than master-shot clips, whereas anodal participants gave consistent estimates regardless of editing density.2 3
  • A significant main effect of action type emerged (F(2,180) = 9.45, p < 0.001, partial eta-squared = 0.17), with “drinking water” clips estimated as shorter than “cutting bread” and “moving objects”; the tDCS-by-editing interaction was driven mainly by the “moving objects” clips (F(4,90) = 3.51, p < 0.05).2 3
  • The authors interpret anodal SMA excitation as strengthening a temporal visuomotor representation that compensates for movement-induced time dilation, consistent with the SMA’s proposed role as the “accumulator” in internal-clock models where contingent negative variation (CNV) amplitude scales with estimated duration.4
  • The study is behavioral/cognitive and non-clinical, but its noninvasive SMA neuromodulation protocol (electrode montage, 1.5 mA/20 min dosing) is methods-relevant to tDCS-based neuromodulation and to timing-related components in motor BCI paradigms; no BCI or neuroprosthetic decoding outcomes were reported.2

Footnotes

  1. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMinAFBVV95cUxOZnpIR0lKMzdyaURCVXpvbTBoNGo0cHdxbjBvYlBxZ3FRRThoS21FTDAxR0pVSVBRNWFOdWhEUnBYNzgycjVDQ2VDcHd0VjlDTUtGcXZqRFh5ME5aQzFHQmszbXZoOVdjR2ppSjB0RFdxaVVNT0VndzhfOWUtY2pYSTY2empzNmJfYjFfNGZrcVV6NmVHZmNmNU1mMHk?oc=5 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1595599/full ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554767/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154296/ ↩

Graph View