Contemporary non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have shown promising potential in both restituting impairments in cortical physiology in clinical settings, as well as modulating cognitive abilities in the healthy population. However, neuroplastic after-effects of tDCS are highly dependent on stimulation parameters, relatively short lasting, and not expectedly uniform between individuals. The present study systematically investigates the full range of current intensity between 0.5 and 2.0 mA on left primary motor cortex (M1) plasticity, as well as the impact of individual-level covariates on explaining inter-individual variability. Thirty-eight healthy subjects were divided into groups of anodal and cathodal tDCS. Five DC intensities (sham, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mA) were investigated in separate sessions. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), 25 motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded before, and 10 time points up to 2 h following 15 min of tDCS. Repeated-measures ANOVAs indicated a main effect of intensity for both anodal and cathodal tDCS. With anodal tDCS, all active intensities resulted in equivalent facilitatory effects relative to sham while for cathodal tDCS, only 1.0 mA resulted in sustained excitability diminution. An additional experiment conducted to assess intra-individual variability revealed generally good reliability of 1.0 mA anodal tDCS (ICC(2,1) = 0.74 over the first 30 min). A post hoc analysis to discern sources of inter-individual variability confirmed a previous finding in which individual TMS SI (stimulus intensity for 1 mV MEP amplitude) sensitivity correlated negatively with 1.0 mA anodal tDCS effects on excitability. Our study thus provides further insights on the extent of non-linear intensity-dependent neuroplastic after-effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS.
There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data-emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine.
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been gaining increased popularity in human neuroscience research during the last years. Among the emerging NIBS tools is transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), whose main modalities are transcranial direct, and alternating current stimulation (tDCS, tACS). In tES, a small current (usually less than 3mA) is delivered through the scalp. Depending on its shape, density, and duration, the applied current induces acute or long-lasting effects on excitability and activity of cerebral regions, and brain networks. tES is increasingly applied in different domains to (a) explore human brain physiology with regard to plasticity, and brain oscillations, (b) explore the impact of brain physiology on cognitive processes, and (c) treat clinical symptoms in neurological and psychiatric diseases. In this review, we give a broad overview of the main mechanisms and applications of these brain stimulation tools.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induces polarity‐ and dose‐dependent neuroplastic aftereffects on cortical excitability and cortical activity, as demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and functional imaging (fMRI) studies. However, lacking systematic comparative studies between stimulation‐induced changes in cortical excitability obtained from TMS, and cortical neurovascular activity obtained from fMRI, prevent the extrapolation of respective physiological and mechanistic bases. We investigated polarity‐ and intensity‐dependent effects of tDCS on cerebral blood flow (CBF) using resting‐state arterial spin labeling (ASL‐MRI), and compared the respective changes to TMS‐induced cortical excitability (amplitudes of motor evoked potentials, MEP) in separate sessions within the same subjects (n = 29). Fifteen minutes of sham, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0‐mA anodal or cathodal tDCS was applied over the left primary motor cortex (M1) in a randomized repeated‐measure design. Time‐course changes were measured before, during and intermittently up to 120‐min after stimulation. ROI analyses indicated linear intensity‐ and polarity‐dependent tDCS after‐effects: all anodal‐M1 intensities increased CBF under the M1 electrode, with 2.0‐mA increasing CBF the greatest (15.3%) compared to sham, while all cathodal‐M1 intensities decreased left M1 CBF from baseline, with 2.0‐mA decreasing the greatest (−9.3%) from sham after 120‐min. The spatial distribution of perfusion changes correlated with the predicted electric field, as simulated with finite element modeling. Moreover, tDCS‐induced excitability changes correlated more strongly with perfusion changes in the left sensorimotor region compared to the targeted hand‐knob region. Our findings reveal lasting tDCS‐induced alterations in cerebral perfusion, which are dose‐dependent with tDCS parameters, but only partially account for excitability changes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.