No work to date had examined the extent to which brain–environment synchrony is stable, or reliable, from day to day. This is despite calls for using rhythmic auditory or electrical stimulation as an intervention to interfere with or improve brain–environment synchrony, which hinges on having a stable target. We showed strong reliability of both the behavioral and neural measures of brain–environment synchrony. The demonstration that brain–environment synchrony is reliable over days and weeks is absolutely critical to establish prior to attempting to use a noninvasive brain stimulation technique to interfere with entrainment.
We also conducted a multi-session study where we acquired two special types of structural brain images as well as functional images using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); functional data were acquired while participants performed the core task. Using these structural and functional data, we used advanced modeling techniques to simulate how electric field travels through the skin, skull, cerebrospinal fluid, and brains of each individual listener, given their own personal anatomy. From these simulations, we determined the optimal positioning of the electrodes that we use to apply electrical current using transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) to interfere with task performance. We compared this group of participants to another group for which we used a standard out-of-the-box electrode placements. The results indicated that tACS was capable of modulating brain–environment synchrony, but not "rewriting" what the brain was naturally doing. This demonstrates that tACS can reliably be used to increase the strength of brain–environment synchrony. Although the two participant groups with different electrode montages did not differ significantly in terms of the strength of tACS effects, using individual montages reduced inter-individual variability, which is crucial given the weak and highly variable nature of tACS effects in the literature. We conducted post-hoc electric field modeling to try to predict the strength of tACS effects on an individual-by-individual basis based on how much electric field was getting where. We determined that, unsurprisingly, maximizing electric field to the target brain region, but perhaps surprisingly, simultaneously minimizing the amount of electric field that reaches non-target regions, explained how well tACS worked to modulate an individual's behavior. These breakthroughs are critical going forward for understanding how to maximize the effects of noninvasive brain stimulation in humans.