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.

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1–2 mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2 mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity ‘conventional’ TES defined as <4 mA, up to 60 min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3–13 A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10 mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6–7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

No abstract

One of the most frequent symptoms of unilateral stroke is aphasia, the impairment or loss of language functions. Over the past few years, behavioral and neuroimaging studies have shown that rehabilitation interventions can promote neuroplastic changes in aphasic patients that may be associated with the improvement of language functions. Following left-hemisphere strokes, the functional reorganization of language in aphasic patients has been proposed to involve both intrahemispheric interactions between damaged left-hemisphere and perilesional sites and transcallosal interhemispheric interactions between the lesioned left-hemisphere language areas and homotopic regions in the right hemisphere. A growing body of evidence for such reorganization comes from studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), two safe and noninvasive procedures that can be applied clinically to modulate cortical excitability during poststroke language recovery. We discuss a hierarchical model for the plastic changes in language representation that occur in the setting of dominant hemisphere stroke and aphasia. We further argue that TMS and tDCS are potentially promising tools for enhancing functional recovery of language and for further elucidating mechanisms of plasticity in patients with aphasia.

The network of brain areas aphasic patients recruit for language functions is largely consistent across studies. Several recruitment mechanisms occur, including persistent function in spared nodes, compensatory recruitment of alternate nodes, and recruitment of areas that may hinder recovery. These findings may guide development of brain stimulation protocols that can be applied across populations of aphasic patients who share common attributes.

BackgroundThe loss of vision has been associated with enhanced performance in non-visual tasks such as tactile discrimination and sound localization. Current evidence suggests that these functional gains are linked to the recruitment of the occipital visual cortex for non-visual processing, but the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying these crossmodal changes remain uncertain. One possible explanation is that visual deprivation is associated with an unmasking of non-visual input into visual cortex.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe investigated the effect of sudden, complete and prolonged visual deprivation (five days) in normally sighted adult individuals while they were immersed in an intensive tactile training program. Following the five-day period, blindfolded subjects performed better on a Braille character discrimination task. In the blindfold group, serial fMRI scans revealed an increase in BOLD signal within the occipital cortex in response to tactile stimulation after five days of complete visual deprivation. This increase in signal was no longer present 24 hours after blindfold removal. Finally, reversible disruption of occipital cortex function on the fifth day (by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; rTMS) impaired Braille character recognition ability in the blindfold group but not in non-blindfolded controls. This disruptive effect was no longer evident once the blindfold had been removed for 24 hours.Conclusions/SignificanceOverall, our findings suggest that sudden and complete visual deprivation in normally sighted individuals can lead to profound, but rapidly reversible, neuroplastic changes by which the occipital cortex becomes engaged in processing of non-visual information. The speed and dynamic nature of the observed changes suggests that normally inhibited or masked functions in the sighted are revealed by visual loss. The unmasking of pre-existing connections and shifts in connectivity represent rapid, early plastic changes, which presumably can lead, if sustained and reinforced, to slower developing, but more permanent structural changes, such as the establishment of new neural connections in the blind.

Debate exists regarding differences in the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in African Americans and Hispanics in the United States, with some evidence suggesting that the prevalence of AD may be considerably higher in these groups than in non-Hispanic whites. Despite this possible disparity, patients of minority ethnoracial groups often receive delayed diagnosis or inadequate treatment for dementia. This review investigates these disparities by conceptualizing the dementia disease process as a product of both biological and cultural factors. Ethnoracial differences in biological risk factors, such as genetics and cardiovascular disease, may help to explain disparities in the incidence and prevalence of AD, while race-specific cultural factors may impact diagnosis and treatment. Cultural factors include differences in perceptions about what is normal aging and what is not, lack of adequate access to medical care, and issues of trust between minority groups and the medical establishment. The diagnosis of AD in diverse populations may also be complicated by racial biases inherent in cognitive screening tools widely used by clinicians, but controlling for literacy level or using savings scores in psychometric analyses has the potential to mitigate these biases. We also suggest that emerging biomarker-based diagnostic tools may be useful in further characterizing diverse populations with AD. Recognizing the gap in communication that exists between minority communities and the medical research community, we propose that education and outreach are a critical next step in the effort to understand AD as it relates to diverse populations.

Background A limited number of studies have shown that modulation of cortical excitability using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is safe and tolerable. Few have directly evaluated whether sham and active stimulation are indistinguishable. Objective We aimed to demonstrate tDCS safety and tolerability in a large cohort, and to compare the occurrence and severity of side effects between sham and active stimulation sessions. Methods 131 healthy subjects undergoing 277 tDCS sessions rated on a 1 to 5 scale the perception of side effects during and after stimulation. Proportions of active and sham sessions associated with side effects were compared using Fisher’s exact test, and distributions of severity ratings were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results No serious adverse effects occurred. Side effects most commonly reported were tingling (76%), itching (68%), burning (54%), and pain (25%). Side effect severity was mild, with fewer than two percent of responses indicating a severity >3 on all questions except tingling (15%), itching (20%), burning (7%), pain (5%) and fatigue (3%) during stimulation. Rates of sensory side effects were statistically significantly higher in active stimulation sessions compared to sham sessions. No other stimulation parameters had a statistically significant impact on side effect occurrence. Conclusions TDCS is a safe well-tolerated technique with no evidence of risk for serious adverse effects. Sensory side effects are common, but the severity is typically low. Because sensory side effects are more frequent and more severe in active compared to sham tDCS, the current method of sham stimulation may not be an adequate control condition for some studies.