Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC), can produce significant effects on working memory (WM) performance and associated neurophysiological activity. However, results from previous studies are inconsistent and occasionally contradictory. This inconsistency may be attributed to methodological and individual differences during experiments. This study therefore investigated two hypotheses: (1) A multichannel-optimized montage was expected to be more effective than a classical bipolar montage, because of increased focality. (2) The subjects were expected to benefit differently from the stimulation depending on their initial task performance. In a sham-controlled crossover study, 24 healthy participants received bipolar, multichannel, and sham stimulation for 20 min in randomized order, targeting the lDLPFC while performing a 2-back WM task. After stimulation, electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded at rest and during 2-back and nontarget continuous performance task (CPT) performance. Bipolar and multichannel stimulations were both well tolerated and effectively blinded. We found no effect of stimulation on behavioral performance or neuronal oscillations comparing the classical bipolar or multichannel montage with sham stimulation. We did, however, find an interaction between stimulation and initial task performance. For multichannel stimulation, initially low-performing participants tended to improve their WM performance while initially high-performing participants tended to worsen their performance compared to sham stimulation. Both tDCS montages induced changes in neural oscillatory power, which correlated with baseline performance. The worse the participants’ initial WM performance was, the more task-related theta power was induced by multichannel and bipolar stimulation. The same effect was observed for alpha power in the nontarget task following multichannel stimulation. Notably, we were not able to show a superiority of multichannel stimulation compared to bipolar stimulation. Still, comparing both montages with sham stimulation, multichannel stimulation led to stronger effects than bipolar stimulation. The current study highlights the importance of investigating different parameters with potential influence on tDCS effects in combination. Our results demonstrate how individual differences in cognitive performance and electrode montages influence effects of tDCS on neuropsychological performance. These findings support the idea of an individualized and optimized stimulation setting, potentially leading to increased tDCS effects.

Transcranial current stimulation (tCS or tES) protocols yield results that are highly variable across individuals. Part of this variability results from differences in the electric field (E-field) induced in subjects’ brains during stimulation. The E-field determines how neurons respond to stimulation, and it can be used as a proxy for predicting the concurrent effects of stimulation, like changes in cortical excitability, and, ultimately, its plastic effects. While the use of multichannel systems with small electrodes has provided a more precise tool for delivering tCS, individually variable anatomical parameters like the shape and thickness of tissues affect the E-field distribution for a specific electrode montage. Therefore, using the same montage parameters across subjects does not lead to the homogeneity of E-field amplitude over the desired targets. Here we describe a pipeline that leverages individualized head models combined with montage optimization algorithms to reduce the variability of the E-field distributions over subjects in tCS. We will describe the different steps of the pipeline – namely, MRI segmentation and head model creation, target specification, and montage optimization – and discuss their main advantages and limitations.

No abstract

Methodological studies investigating transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) in paediatric populations are limited. Therefore, we investigated in a paediatric population whether stimulation success of multichannel tDCS over the lDLPFC depends on concurrent task performance and individual head anatomy. In a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blind crossover study 22 healthy participants (10–17 years) received 2 mA multichannel anodal tDCS (atDCS) over the lDLPFC with and without a 2-back working memory (WM) task. After stimulation, the 2-back task and a Flanker task were performed. Resting state and task-related EEG were recorded. In 16 participants we calculated the individual electric field (E-field) distribution. Performance and neurophysiological activity in the 2-back task were not affected by atDCS. atDCS reduced reaction times in the Flanker task, independent of whether atDCS had been combined with the 2-back task. Flanker task related beta oscillation increased following stimulation without 2-back task performance. atDCS effects were not correlated with the E-field. We found no effect of multichannel atDCS over the lDLPFC on WM in children/adolescents but a transfer effect on interference control. While this effect on behaviour was independent of concurrent task performance, neurophysiological activity might be more sensitive to cognitive activation during stimulation. However, our results are limited by the small sample size, the lack of an active control group and variations in WM performance.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of transcranial random noise (tRNS) and transcranial alternating current (tACS) stimulation on motor cortex excitability in healthy children and adolescents. Additionally, based on our recent results on the individual response to sham in adults, we explored this effect in the pediatric population. We included 15 children and adolescents (10–16 years) and 28 adults (20–30 years). Participants were stimulated four times with 20 Hz and 140 Hz tACS, tRNS, and sham stimulation (1 mA) for 10 minutes over the left M1HAND. Single-pulse MEPs (motor evoked potential), short-interval intracortical inhibition, and facilitation were measured by TMS before and after stimulation (baseline, 0, 30, 60 minutes). We also investigated aspects of tolerability. According to the individual MEPs response immediately after sham stimulation compared to baseline (Wilcoxon signed-rank test), subjects were regarded as responders or nonresponders to sham. We did not find a significant age effect. Regardless of age, 140 Hz tACS led to increased excitability. Incidence and intensity of side effects did not differ between age groups or type of stimulation. Analyses on responders and nonresponders to sham stimulation showed effects of 140 Hz, 20 Hz tACS, and tRNS on single-pulse MEPs only for nonresponders. In this study, children and adolescents responded to 1 mA tRNS and tACS comparably to adults regarding the modulation of motor cortex excitability. This study contributes to the findings that noninvasive brain stimulation is well tolerated in children and adolescents including tACS, which has not been studied before. Finally, our study supports a modulating role of sensitivity to sham stimulation on responsiveness to a broader stimulation and age range.