present study benefited from several additional stimulation controls, such as the pre-stimulation baseline of Experiment 4 and the frontotemporal nontuned condition of Experiment 2. The latter condition stands as a particularly robust control because unlike the sham condition the electrical current of the nontuned montage was running throughout the entire 10-block duration and at 1.6 mA intensity. Third, we used a double blind method in which a second experimenter set the mode (e.g., active or sham) on the stimulator, but otherwise did not interact with the subject or the experimenter who performed data collection. Fourth, we conducted recordings in a sound-attenuated, electrically shielded chamber to eliminate subject-experimenter interaction, which could have at least implicitly biased the subjects. Fifth, the test days for each subject were separated by at least one week to avoid potential carryover effects from the stimulation. Sixth, we confirmed that subjects were blind to the presence of the stimulation. After each test day, we administered a safety questionnaire 69 and visual analog scale 70, which included questions regarding attention, concentration, mood, vision, headache, fatigue, and skin sensations under the stimulating electrodes. Scores on these ratings did not significantly differ by stimulation condition (Experiment 1, Fs1, 41 <
