This review updates and consolidates evidence on the safety of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Safety is here operationally defined by, and limited to, the absence of evidence for a Serious Adverse Effect, the criteria for which are rigorously defined. This review adopts an evidence-based approach, based on an aggregation of experience from human trials, taking care not to confuse speculation on potential hazards or lack of data to refute such speculation with evidence for risk. Safety data from animal tests for tissue damage are reviewed with systematic consideration of translation to humans. Arbitrary safety considerations are avoided. Computational models are used to relate dose to brain exposure in humans and animals. We review relevant dose-response curves and dose metrics (e.g. current, duration, current density, charge, charge density) for meaningful safety standards. Special consideration is given to theoretically vulnerable populations including children and the elderly, subjects with mood disorders, epilepsy, stroke, implants, and home users. Evidence from relevant animal models indicates that brain injury by Direct Current Stimulation (DCS) occurs at predicted brain current densities (6.3–13 A/m2) that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by conventional tDCS. To date, the use of conventional tDCS protocols in human trials (≤40 min, ≤4 mA, ≤7.2 Coulombs) has not produced any reports of a Serious Adverse Effect or irreversible injury across over 33,200 sessions and 1,000 subjects with repeated sessions. This includes a wide variety of subjects, including persons from potentially vulnerable populations.

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), including transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation (tDCS, tACS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques increasingly used for modulation of central nervous system excitability in humans. Here we address methodological issues required for tES application. This review covers technical aspects of tES, as well as applications like exploration of brain physiology, modelling approaches, tES in cognitive neurosciences, and interventional approaches. It aims to help the reader to appropriately design and conduct studies involving these brain stimulation techniques, understand limitations and avoid shortcomings, which might hamper the scientific rigor and potential applications in the clinical domain.

The concept of ‘Successful Aging’ has long intrigued the scientific community. Despite this long-standing interest, a consensus definition has proven to be a difficult task, due to the inherent challenge involved in defining such a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. The lack of a clear set of defining characteristics for the construct of successful aging has made comparison of findings across studies difficult and has limited advances in aging research. The domain in which consensus on markers of successful aging is furthest developed is the domain of physical functioning. For example, walking speed appears to be an excellent surrogate marker of overall health and predicts the maintenance of physical independence, a cornerstone of successful aging. The purpose of the present article is to provide an overview and discussion of specific health conditions, behavioral factors, and biological mechanisms that mark declining mobility and physical function and promising interventions to counter these effects. With life expectancy continuing to increase in the United States and developed countries throughout the world, there is an increasing public health focus on the maintenance of physical independence among all older adults.

BACKGROUND Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the brain’s principal inhibitory neurotransmitter, has been associated with perceptual and attentional functioning. Recent application of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides in vivo evidence for decreasing GABA concentrations during adulthood. It is unclear, however, how age-related decrements in cerebral GABA concentrations contribute to cognitive decline, or whether previously reported declines in cerebral GABA concentrations persist during healthy aging. We hypothesized that participants with higher GABA concentrations in the frontal cortex would exhibit superior cognitive function and that previously reported age-related decreases in cortical GABA concentrations continue into old age. METHODS We measured GABA concentrations in frontal and posterior midline cerebral regions using a Mescher-Garwood point-resolved spectroscopy (MEGA-PRESS) 1H-MRS approach in 94 older adults without history or clinical evidence of mild cognitive impairment or dementia (mean age, 73 years). We administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to assess cognitive functioning. RESULTS Greater frontal GABA concentrations were associated with superior cognitive performance. This relation remained significant after controlling for age, years of education, and brain atrophy. GABA concentrations in both frontal and posterior regions decreased as a function of age. CONCLUSIONS These novel findings from a large, healthy, older population indicate that cognitive function is sensitive to cerebral GABA concentrations in the frontal cortex, and GABA concentration in frontal and posterior regions continue to decline in later age. These effects suggest that proton MRS may provide a clinically useful method for the assessment of normal and abnormal age-related cognitive changes and the associated physiological contributors.

D. R. Proffitt and colleagues (e. g., D. R. Proffitt, J. Stefanucci, T. Banton, & W. Epstein, 2003) have suggested that objects appear farther away if more effort is required to act upon them (e.g., by having to throw a ball). The authors attempted to replicate several findings supporting this view but found no effort-related effects in a variety of conditions differing in environment, type of effort, and intention to act. Although they did find an effect of effort on verbal reports when participants were instructed to take into account nonvisual (cognitive) factors, no effort-related effect was found under apparent-and objective-distance instruction types. The authors' interpretation is that in the paradigms tested, effort manipulations are prone to influencing response calibration because they encourage participants to take nonperceptual connotations of distance into account while leaving perceived distance itself unaffected. This in no way rules out the possibility that effort influences perception in other contexts, but it does focus attention on the role of response calibration in any verbal distance estimation task. Keywordsegocentric distance perception; effort; calibration; visual perception; instruction type Space perception researchers commonly encounter people who say, "You should study memy distance perception is terrible!" In experimental settings, however, the average participant can demonstrate remarkably good distance perception by walking accurately without vision to objects initially seen at distances up to 22 m or more (e. g., Loomis, Da Silva, Fujita, & Fukusima, 1992;Rieser, Ashmead, Talor, & Youngquist, 1990;Thomson, 1980, among a host of others). Informal discussion often reveals that people directly equate "poor distance perception" with their sense of unfamiliarity with assigning numbers to distances. Researchers, on the other hand, typically do not conceive of perceived distance as being so narrowly tied to one specific type of behavioral response. In fact, researchers have used a variety of behavioral methods to measure perceived distance in addition to blindfolded walking and verbal reports (see Loomis, Da Silva, Philbeck, &Fukusima, 1996, and Da Silva, 1985, for reviews). This illustrates that nonspecialists may have very different interpretations of "distance" and NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript "perceived distance" than researchers do. This article explores some possible conceptualizations of distance and their implications for space perception research.For researchers, perceived egocentric distance (or simply perceived distance) is a representation of the distance between oneself and an object. Some previous models of visual space perception (e.g., Foley, 1991;Gogel, 1990;Landy, Maloney, Johnson, & Young, 1995) have conceived of perceived distance as the result of a series of processing stages: taking a set of stimulus cues as inputs, weighting these cues according to their reliability, and then combining the resulting weighted st...

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is being widely investigated in adults as a therapeutic modality for brain disorders involving abnormal cortical excitability or disordered network activity. Interest is also growing in studying tDCS in children. Limited empirical studies in children suggest that tDCS is well tolerated and may have a similar safety profile as in adults. However, in electrotherapy as in pharmacotherapy, dose selection in children requires special attention, and simple extrapolation from adult studies may be inadequate. Critical aspects of dose adjustment include 1) differences in neurophysiology and disease, and 2) variation in brain electric fields for a specified dose due to gross anatomical differences between children and adults. In this study, we used high-resolution MRI derived finite element modeling simulations of two healthy children, ages 8 years and 12 years, and three healthy adults with varying head size to compare differences in electric field intensity and distribution. Multiple conventional and high-definition tDCS montages were tested. Our results suggest that on average, children will be exposed to higher peak electrical fields for a given applied current intensity than adults, but there is likely to be overlap between adults with smaller head size and children. In addition, exposure is montage specific. Variations in peak electrical fields were seen between the two pediatric models, despite comparable head size, suggesting that the relationship between neuroanatomic factors and bioavailable current dose is not trivial. In conclusion, caution is advised in using higher tDCS doses in children until 1) further modeling studies in a larger group shed light on the range of exposure possible by applied dose and age and 2) further studies correlate bioavailable dose estimates from modeling studies with empirically tested physiologic effects, such as modulation of motor evoked potentials after stimulation.

BackgroundNeuropsychiatric disorders are a leading source of disability and require novel treatments that target mechanisms of disease. As such disorders are thought to result from aberrant neuronal circuit activity, neuromodulation approaches are of increasing interest given their potential for manipulating circuits directly. Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) with direct currents (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) or alternating currents (transcranial alternating current stimulation, tACS) represent novel, safe, well-tolerated, and relatively inexpensive putative treatment modalities.ObjectiveThis report seeks to promote the science, technology and effective clinical applications of these modalities, identify research challenges, and suggest approaches for addressing these needs in order to achieve rigorous, reproducible findings that can advance clinical treatment.MethodsThe National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a workshop in September 2016 that brought together experts in basic and human neuroscience, electrical stimulation biophysics and devices, and clinical trial methods to examine the physiological mechanisms underlying tDCS/tACS, technologies and technical strategies for optimizing stimulation protocols, and the state of the science with respect to therapeutic applications and trial designs.ResultsAdvances in understanding mechanisms, methodological and technological improvements (e.g., electronics, computational models to facilitate proper dosing), and improved clinical trial designs are poised to advance rigorous, reproducible therapeutic applications of these techniques. A number of challenges were identified and meeting participants made recommendations made to address them.ConclusionsThese recommendations align with requirements in NIMH funding opportunity announcements to, among other needs, define dosimetry, demonstrate dose/response relationships, implement rigorous blinded trial designs, employ computational modeling, and demonstrate target engagement when testing stimulation-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorders.

Background Previous studies indicate that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with anode over motor cortex (M1) and cathode over contralateral supraorbital region (SO) may be effective in reducing pain, but these studies are limited in number and have not focused on older adults with osteoarthritis (OA). Objective To evaluate the preliminary efficacy and safety of M1-SO applied tDCS on clinical pain severity and mobility performance in adults with knee OA pain. Methods Forty 50- to 70-year-old community-dwelling participants with knee OA were randomly assigned to receive five daily sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 min (n = 20) or sham tDCS (n = 20). We measured clinical pain severity via Numeric Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. In addition, we measured mobility performance using the 6-Minute Walk Test and the Short Physical Performance Battery. Moreover, we obtained a sensation/safety questionnaire and measured cognition changes using the PROMIS-Applied Cognition-Abilities-Short Form 8a. Results Active tDCS over M1-SO significantly reduced Numeric Rating Scale of pain compared to sham tDCS after completion of the five daily sessions, and remained up to three weeks. No other measures were significantly different from sham. Participants tolerated tDCS over M1-SO well without serious adverse effects or cognition changes. Conclusion Although not consistent in all pain measurements, our findings demonstrate promising clinical efficacy for reduction in pain perception for older adults with knee OA. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02512393.