Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on craving, heart-rate variability and prefrontal hemodynamics during smoking cue exposure

Kroczek, Agnes; Häußinger, Florian B.; Rohe, Tim; Schneider, Sabrina; Plewnia, Christian; Batra, Anil; Fallgatter, Andreas J.; Ehlis, Ann‐Christine

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.09.006

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Five of the aforementioned studies demonstrated positive effects on nicotine cravings and/or consumption, with significant reductions seen across participants. In contrast, three additional studies observed no significant effect on craving or consumption of tobacco; two of these studies used a single stimulation session of tDCS, and the third used a sample that consisted of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, which may have contributed to the negative findings, as this population tends to be more highly nicotine dependent than non‐psychiatric populations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of brain stimulation methods to treat substance use disorders

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a leading cause of disability worldwide. While several pharmacological and behavioral treatments for SUDs are available, these may not be effective for all patients. Recent studies using non-invasive neuromodulation techniques including Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) have shown promise for SUD treatment. Objective Multiple studies were evaluated investigating the therapeutic potential of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in treatment of SUDs. Method Through literature searches (eg, PubMed, Google Scholar), 60 studies (2000–2017) were identified examining the effect of rTMS, tDCS, or DBS on cravings and consumption of SUDs, including tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, opioids, and stimulants. Results rTMS and tDCS demonstrated decreases in drug craving and consumption, while early studies with DBS suggest similar results. Results are most encouraging when stimulation is targeted to the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC). Conclusions Short-term treatment with rTMS and tDCS may have beneficial effects on drug craving and consumption. Future studies should focus on extending therapeutic benefits by increasing stimulation frequency and duration of treatment. Scientific Significance The utility of these methods in SUD treatment and prevention are unclear, and warrants further study using randomized, controlled designs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight studies have examined the effects of tDCS on nicotine craving in dependent participants. All studies applied 2.0 mA stimulation for 15–30 minutes, except one by Falcone et al, who used a stimulation intensity of 1.0 mA for 20 minutes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of brain stimulation methods to treat substance use disorders

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…66 Another approach was to measure responses in the same general brain region, but not in the exact same surface location. 55,67,68 The remaining studies used a variety of methods to integrate tDCS electrodes and fNIRS optodes over an identical surface location simultaneously. The majority utilized commercial devices that combine tDCS with fNIRS within a premade headcap and precludes any further technical equipment alterations by the investigator.…”

Section: Technical Considerations Of Combined Fnirs and Tdcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of six articles (Table 4) combined tDCS/fNIRS in potential clinical applications: ischemic stroke survivors 53,55 poststroke depression, 62 schizophrenia, 61 nicotine dependence, 68 and tinnitus. 63 Almost all of the studies applied tDCS to the prefrontal cortex with only one 53 placing the stimulation electrode at Cz to focus on assessing neurovascular coupling model.…”

Section: Use Of Combined Tdcs and Fnirs In Clinical Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of combined functional near-infrared spectroscopy and transcranial direct-current stimulation studies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significance: Combining transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) with functional nearinfrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a recent approach to exploring brain activation evoked by neurostimulation. Aim: To critically evaluate studies combining tDCS and fNIRS and provide a consolidated overview of cortical hemodynamic responses to neurostimulation. Approach: Key terms were searched in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) with cross-referencing and works from Google Scholar also evaluated. All studies reporting on fNIRS-derived hemoglobin changes evoked by tDCS were included. Results: Literature searches revealed 474 articles, of which 28 were included for final review (22 in healthy individuals: 9 involving rest and 13 with tasks; 6 in the clinical setting). At rest, an overall increase in cortical activation was observed in fNIRS responses at the site of stimulation, with evidence suggesting nonstimulated brain regions are also similarly affected. Conversely, during tasks, reduced cortical activation was observed during online stimulation. Offline and poststimulation effects were less consistent, as is the impact on clinical populations and their symptom correlation. Conclusion: This review explores the methodological frameworks for fNIRS-tDCS evaluations and summarizes hemodynamic responses associated with tDCS in all populations. Our findings provide further evidence of the impact of tDCS on neuronal activation within functionally connected networks.

show abstract

“…The neurobiological mechanisms of tDCS depend on a variety of factors, including current strength and duration; the number, polarity, and specific placement of electrodes; the electrode composition and size; and individual differences in physiology (Li et al., ). tDCS is thought to alter neuronal activity indirectly by inducing changes in resting membrane potential, cerebral blood flow, synaptic transmission, oscillatory activity, functional connectivity, and neurotransmitter concentrations (Fonteneau et al., ; Kroczek et al., ).…”

Section: Behavioral and Neurobiological Dysfunction In Audmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindfulness‐Based Relapse Prevention and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Reduce Heavy Drinking: A Double‐Blind Sham‐Controlled Randomized Trial

Witkiewitz

Stein

Votaw

et al. 2019

Alcoholism Clin & Exp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have independently shown benefits for treating alcohol use disorder (AUD). Recent work suggests tDCS may enhance mindfulness. The combination of MBRP and tDCS may provide synergistic benefits and may target both behavioral and neurobiological dysfunctions in AUD. The goal of this double-blind sham-controlled randomized trial was to examine the efficacy of a rolling group MBRP treatment combined with tDCS among individuals interested in reducing their drinking.Methods: Individuals who were interested in reducing their alcohol use (n = 84; 40.5% female; mean age = 52.3; 98.9% with current AUD) were randomized to receive active (2.0 milliamps) or sham (0.0 milliamps) anodal tDCS (5 cm 9 3 cm electrode) of the right inferior frontal gyrus with the 5 cm 9 3 cm cathodal electrode applied to the left upper arm, combined with 8 weeks of outpatient MBRP rolling group treatment. Assessments were conducted at baseline, posttreatment, and 2 months following treatment. The primary outcome was drinks per drinking day, and secondary outcomes were percent heavy drinking days, self-reported craving, alcohol cue reactivity in an alcohol cue task, and response inhibition in a stop signal reaction time task.Results: Results indicated significant reductions in drinks per drinking day over time, B (SE) = À0.535 (0.16), p = 0.001, and a significant dose effect for number of groups attended, B (SE) = À0.259 (0.11), p = 0.01. There were also significant effects of time and dose for number of groups attended on secondary outcomes of percent heavy drinking days and alcohol cue reactivity. There were no effects of active versus sham tDCS on primary or secondary outcomes.Conclusions: Findings from the current study provide initial support for the effectiveness of rolling group MBRP as an outpatient treatment for drinking reduction. The current study did not find additive effects of this tDCS protocol in enhancing MBRP among individuals with drinking reduction goals.

show abstract

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on craving, heart-rate variability and prefrontal hemodynamics during smoking cue exposure

Cited by 38 publications

References 24 publications

A review of brain stimulation methods to treat substance use disorders

A review of brain stimulation methods to treat substance use disorders

Systematic review of combined functional near-infrared spectroscopy and transcranial direct-current stimulation studies

Mindfulness‐Based Relapse Prevention and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Reduce Heavy Drinking: A Double‐Blind Sham‐Controlled Randomized Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About