Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a safe, tolerable, and acceptable technique in adults. However, there is limited evidence for its safety in youth. Although limited, there are a handful of important empirical articles that have evaluated safety and tolerability outcomes in youth. However, a synthesis of pediatric safety studies is not currently available. Objective: To synthesize objective evidence regarding the safety and tolerability of pediatric tDCS based on the current state of the literature. Methods: Our search and report used PRISMA guidelines. Our method systematically examined investigations purposefully designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and acceptability of tDCS in healthy and atypical youth that were submitted to three databases, from the beginning of the database to November 2019. Safety considerations were evaluated by studies utilizing neuroimaging, physiological changes, performance on tasks, and by analyzing reported and objective side effects; tolerability via rate of adverse events; and acceptability via rate of dropouts. Results: We report on 203 sham sessions, 864 active sessions up to 2 mA, and 303 active hours of stimulation in 156 children. A total of 4.4% of the active sessions were in neurotypical controls, with the other 95.6% in clinical subjects. Conclusion: In spite of the fact that the current evidence is sporadic and scarce, the presently reviewed literature provides support for the safety, tolerability, and acceptability, of tDCS in youth for 1–20 sessions of 20 min up to 2 mA. Future pediatric tDCS research is encouraged.

In the last decade there has been significant growth in the interest and application of using EEG (electroencephalography) outside of laboratory as well as in medical and clinical settings, for more ecological and mobile applications. However, for now such applications have mainly included military, educational, cognitive enhancement, and consumer-based games. Given the monetary and ecological advantages, consumer-grade EEG devices such as the Emotiv EPOC have emerged, however consumer-grade devices make certain compromises of data quality in order to become affordable and easy to use. The goal of this study was to investigate the reliability and accuracy of EPOC as compared to a research-grade device, Brainvision. To this end, we collected data from participants using both devices during three distinct cognitive tasks designed to elicit changes in arousal, valence, and cognitive load: namely, Affective Norms for English Words, International Affective Picture System, and the n-Back task. Our design and analytical strategies followed an ideographic person-level approach (electrode-wise analysis of vincentized repeated measures). We aimed to assess how well the Emotiv could differentiate between mental states using an Event-Related Band Power approach and EEG features such as amplitude and power, as compared to Brainvision. The Emotiv device was able to differentiate mental states during these tasks to some degree, however it was generally poorer than Brainvision, with smaller effect sizes. The Emotiv may be used with reasonable reliability and accuracy in ecological settings and in some clinical contexts (for example, for training professionals), however Brainvision or other, equivalent research-grade devices are still recommended for laboratory or medical based applications.