Search

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and compare differences in efficacy between different stimulation modalities. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for all studies published in English from inception to April 2023. Literature screening and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the therapeutic effects of NIBS. The Cochrane Q test and I2 statistic were used to evaluate heterogeneity between studies. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity, and differences in efficacy between different stimulation modalities were compared by Bayesian analysis. Results: A total of 17 studies with 377 DoC patients were included. NIBS significantly improved the state of consciousness in DoC patients when compared to sham stimulation (WMD: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.17; I2 = 78.2%, p = 0.000). When divided into subgroups according to stimulation modalities, the heterogeneity of each subgroup was significantly lower than before (I2: 0.00-30.4%, p >0.05); different stimulation modalities may be the main source of such heterogeneity. Bayesian analysis, based on different stimulation modalities, indicated that a patient's state of consciousness improved most significantly after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Diagnosis-based subgroup analysis showed that NIBS significantly improved the state of consciousness in patients with a minimal consciousness state (WMD: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.37, 1.86) but not in patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome or a vegetative state (WMD: 0.31; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.71). Subgroup analysis based on observation time showed that single treatment did not improve the state of consciousness in DoC patients (WMD: 0.28; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.82) while multiple treatments could (WMD: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.61). Furthermore, NIBS had longterm effects on DoC patients (WMD: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.08-1.49). Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that the use of NIBS on patients with DoC is more effective than sham stimulation, and that rTMS of the left DLPFC may be the most prominent stimulation modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dysfunction within large-scale brain networks as the basis for movement disorders is an accepted hypothesis. The treatment options for restoring network function are limited. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation are now being studied to modify the network. Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is also a portable, cost-effective, and non-invasive way of network modulation. Transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial alternating current stimulation have been studied in Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, tremor, and ataxia. Transcranial pulsed current stimulation and transcranial random noise stimulation are not yet studied enough. The literature in the use of these techniques is intriguing, yet many unanswered questions remain. In this review, we highlight the studies using these four potential tES techniques and their electrophysiological basis and consider the therapeutic implication in the field of movement disorders. The objectives are to consolidate the current literature, demonstrate that these methods are feasible, and encourage the application of such techniques in the near future.

Dysfunction within large-scale brain networks as the basis for movement disorders is an accepted hypothesis. The treatment options for restoring network function are limited. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation are now being studied to modify the network. Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is also a portable, cost-effective, and non-invasive way of network modulation. Transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial alternating current stimulation have been studied in Parkinson's disease, dystonia, tremor, and ataxia. Transcranial pulsed current stimulation and transcranial random noise stimulation are not yet studied enough. The literature in the use of these techniques is intriguing, yet many unanswered questions remain. In this review, we highlight the studies using these four potential tES techniques and their electrophysiological basis and consider the therapeutic implication in the field of movement disorders. The objectives are to consolidate the current literature, demonstrate that these methods are feasible, and encourage the application of such techniques in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present study was to test whether transcranial electrical stimulation can modulate illusory perception in the auditory domain. In two separate experiments we applied transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (anodal/cathodal tDCS, 2 mA; N = 60) and high-frequency transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (hf-tRNS, 1.5 mA, offset 0; N = 45) on the temporal cortex during the presentation of the stimuli eliciting the Deutsch's illusion. The illusion arises when two sine tones spaced one octave apart (400 and 800 Hz) are presented dichotically in alternation, one in the left and the other in the right ear, so that when the right ear receives the high tone, the left ear receives the low tone, and vice versa. The majority of the population perceives one high-pitched tone in one ear alternating with one low-pitched tone in the other ear. The results revealed that neither anodal nor cathodal tDCS applied over the left/right temporal cortex modulated the perception of the illusion, whereas hf-tRNS applied bilaterally on the temporal cortex reduced the number of times the sequence of sounds is perceived as the Deutsch's illusion with respect to the sham control condition. The stimulation time before the beginning of the task (5 or 15 min) did not influence the perceptual outcome. In accordance with previous findings, we conclude that hf-tRNS can modulate auditory perception more efficiently than tDCS.

The aim of the present study was to test whether transcranial electrical stimulation can modulate illusory perception in the auditory domain. In two separate experiments we applied transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (anodal/cathodal tDCS, 2mA; N = 60) and high-frequency transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (hf-tRNS, 1.5mA, offset 0; N = 45) on the temporal cortex during the presentation of the stimuli eliciting the Deutsch's illusion. The illusion arises when two sine tones spaced one octave apart (400 and 800 Hz) are presented dichotically in alternation, one in the left and the other in the right ear, so that when the right ear receives the high tone, the left ear receives the low tone, and vice versa. The majority of the population perceives one high-pitched tone in one ear alternating with one low-pitched tone in the other ear. The results revealed that neither anodal nor cathodal tDCS applied over the left/right temporal cortex modulated the perception of the illusion, whereas hf-tRNS applied bilaterally on the temporal cortex reduced the number of times the sequence of sounds is perceived as the Deutsch's illusion with respect to the sham control condition. The stimulation time before the beginning of the task (5 or 15 min) did not influence the perceptual outcome. In accordance with previous findings, we conclude that hf-tRNS can modulate auditory perception more efficiently than tDCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and compare differences in efficacy between different stimulation modalities., Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for all studies published in English from inception to April 2023. Literature screening and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the therapeutic effects of NIBS. The Cochrane Q test and I 2 statistic were used to evaluate heterogeneity between studies. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity, and differences in efficacy between different stimulation modalities were compared by Bayesian analysis., Results: A total of 17 studies with 377 DoC patients were included. NIBS significantly improved the state of consciousness in DoC patients when compared to sham stimulation (WMD: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.17; I 2  = 78.2%, p  = 0.000). When divided into subgroups according to stimulation modalities, the heterogeneity of each subgroup was significantly lower than before (I 2 : 0.00-30.4%, p  >0.05); different stimulation modalities may be the main source of such heterogeneity. Bayesian analysis, based on different stimulation modalities, indicated that a patient's state of consciousness improved most significantly after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Diagnosis-based subgroup analysis showed that NIBS significantly improved the state of consciousness in patients with a minimal consciousness state (WMD: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.37, 1.86) but not in patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome or a vegetative state (WMD: 0.31; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.71). Subgroup analysis based on observation time showed that single treatment did not improve the state of consciousness in DoC patients (WMD: 0.28; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.82) while multiple treatments could (WMD: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.61). Furthermore, NIBS had long-term effects on DoC patients (WMD: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.08-1.49)., Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that the use of NIBS on patients with DoC is more effective than sham stimulation, and that rTMS of the left DLPFC may be the most prominent stimulation modality., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Dong, Li, Dang, Zhang, Yue and Zhang.)

Background: Application of transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) between 0.1 and 640 Hz of the primary motor cortex (M1) for 10 minutes induces a persistent excitability increase lasting for at least 60 minutes. However, the mechanism of tRNS-induced cortical excitability alterations is not yet fully understood. Objective: The main aim of this study was to get first efficacy data with regard to the possible neuronal effect of tRNS. Methods: Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure levels of cortical excitability before and after combined application of tRNS at an intensity of 1mA for 10mins stimulation duration and a pharmacological agent (or sham) on 8 healthy male participants. Results: The sodium channel blocker carbamazepine showed a tendency towards inhibiting MEPs 5-60 mins poststimulation. The GABAA agonist lorazepam suppressed tRNS-induced cortical excitability increases at 0-20 and 60 min time points. The partial NMDA receptor agonist D-cycloserine, the NMDA receptor antagonist dextromethorphan and the D2/D3 receptor agonist ropinirole had no significant effects on the excitability increases seen with tRNS.Conclusions: In contrast to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), aftereffects of tRNS are seem to be not NMDA receptor dependent and can be suppressed by benzodiazepines suggesting that tDCS and tRNS depend upon different mechanisms.

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) are the experience of hearing a voice in the absence of any speaker. Results from recent attempts to treat AVHs with neurostimulation (rTMS or tDCS) to the left temporoparietal junction have not been conclusive, but suggest that it may be a promising treatment option for some individuals. Some evidence suggests that the therapeutic effect of neurostimulation on AVHs may result from modulation of cortical areas involved in the ability to monitor the source of self-generated information. Here, we provide a brief overview of cognitive models and neurostimulation paradigms associated with treatment of AVHs, and discuss techniques that could be explored in the future to improve the efficacy of treatment, including alternating current and random noise stimulation. Technical issues surrounding the use of neurostimulation as a treatment option are discussed (including methods to localize the targeted cortical area, and the state-dependent effects of brain stimulation), as are issues surrounding the acceptability of neurostimulation for adolescent populations and individuals who experience qualitatively different types of AVH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Application of transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) between 0.1 and 640 Hz of the primary motor cortex (M1) for 10 min induces a persistent excitability increase lasting for at least 60 min. However, the mechanism of tRNS-induced cortical excitability alterations is not yet fully understood. Objective: The main aim of this study was to get first efficacy data with regard to the possible neuronal effect of tRNS. Methods: Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure levels of cortical excitability before and after combined application of tRNS at an intensity of 1mA for 10 min stimulation duration and a pharmacological agent (or sham) on eight healthy male participants. Results: The sodium channel blocker carbamazepine showed a tendency toward inhibiting MEPs 5-60 min poststimulation. The GABAA agonist lorazepam suppressed tRNS-induced cortical excitability increases at 0-20 and 60 min time points. The partial NMDA receptor agonist D-cycloserine, the NMDA receptor antagonist dextromethorphan and the D2/D3 receptor agonist ropinirole had no significant effects on the excitability increases seen with tRNS. Conclusions: In contrast to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), aftereffects of tRNS are seem to be not NMDA receptor dependent and can be suppressed by benzodiazepines suggesting that tDCS and tRNS depend upon different mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) are the experience of hearing a voice in the absence of any speaker. Results from recent attempts to treat AVHs with neurostimulation (rTMS or tDCS) to the left temporoparietal junction have not been conclusive, but suggest that it may be a promising treatment option for some individuals. Some evidence suggests that the therapeutic effect of neurostimulation on AVHs may result from modulation of cortical areas involved in the ability to monitor the source of self-generated information. Here, we provide a brief overview of cognitive models and neurostimulation paradigms associated with treatment of AVHs, and discuss techniques that could be explored in the future to improve the efficacy of treatment, including alternating current and random noise stimulation. Technical issues surrounding the use of neurostimulation as a treatment option are discussed (including methods to localize the targeted cortical area, and the state-dependent effects of brain stimulation), as are issues surrounding the acceptability of neurostimulation for adolescent populations and individuals who experience qualitatively different types of AVH.