Neuromodulation of Motor Functions Using Noninvasive Cerebellar and Spinal Direct Current Stimulation

Stolbkov, Yu. K.; Gerasimenko, Yu. P.

doi:10.1007/s11055-022-01258-8

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Modulating spinal cord function via invasive stimulation has been employed clinically for decades [2,3], but more recently non-invasive approaches have become feasible as well [4]. Specifically, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) has emerged as a technique for modulating spinal cord excitability [5][6][7][8][9]. Numerous studies have indicated that tsDCS has a modulatory effect on spinal processing related to somatosensory, nociceptive and reflex responses [10][11][12][13][14][15], suggesting that tsDCS could be a useful tool for investigating spinal cord function in health and disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing adverse effects and unspecific effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS)

Zhao,

Horn,

Freund

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTranscutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a relatively recent method for non-invasively modulating neuronal activity in the human spinal cord. Despite its growing prominence, comprehensive studies addressing its potential adverse effects (AEs) and unspecific effects (UEs) are lacking.ObjectiveIn this study, we conducted a systematic investigation into the potential AEs and UEs of tsDCS in healthy volunteers.MethodsWe used a randomized double-blind within-participant design, employing anodal, cathodal and sham tsDCS of the thoracolumbar spinal cord. Our approach involved a newly-developed structured questionnaire (to assess subjectively-reported AEs) in combination with tsDCS-concurrent recording of skin conductance, cardiac and respiratory activity (to assess UEs in bodily state).ResultsThe most frequently participant-reported AEs were sensations of burning, tingling, and itching, although they were largely described as mild; skin redness (experimenter-reported) occurred even more frequently. Importantly, when comparing AEs between active and sham tsDCS via frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches, the results were largely in favour of no difference between conditions (with the exception of skin redness). A similar picture emerged for most UE metrics, suggesting that tsDCS does not induce changes in bodily state, at least as measured by our autonomic nervous system metrics.ConclusionWe believe that the strategy employed here could serve as a starting point for a systematic AE and UE assessment in clinical populations, longitudinal designs and when stimulating different spinal sites. Taken together, our results contribute to assessing the tolerability, safety and specificity of tsDCS, in order to further the investigation of spinal cord function in health and disease.

show abstract