Search

Background: Repeated sessions of training and non-invasive brain stimulation have the potential to enhance cognition in patients with cognitive impairment. We hypothesized that combining cognitive training with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) will lead to performance improvement in the trained task and yield transfer to non-trained tasks. Methods: In our randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind study, 46 patients with cognitive impairment (60–80 years) were randomly assigned to one of two interventional groups. We administered a 9-session cognitive training (consisting of a letter updating and a Markov decision-making task) over 3 weeks with concurrent 1-mA anodal tDCS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (20 min in tDCS, 30 s in sham group). Primary outcome was trained task performance (letter updating task) immediately after training. Secondary outcomes included performance in tasks testing working memory (N-back task), decision-making (Wiener Matrices test) and verbal memory (verbal learning and memory test), and resting-state functional connectivity (FC). Tasks were administered at baseline, at post-assessment, and at 1- and 7-month follow-ups (FU). MRI was conducted at baseline and 7-month FU. Thirty-nine participants (85%) successfully completed the intervention. Data analyses are reported on the intention-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) sample. Results: For the primary outcome, no difference was observed in the ITT (β = 0.1, 95%-CI [− 1.2, 1.3, p = 0.93] or PP sample (β = − 0.2, 95%-CI [− 1.6, 1.2], p = 0.77). However, secondary analyses in the N-back working memory task showed that, only in the PP sample, the tDCS outperformed the sham group (PP: % correct, β = 5.0, 95%-CI [− 0.1, 10.2], p = 0.06, d-prime β = 0.2, 95%-CI [0.0, 0.4], p = 0.02; ITT: % correct, β = 3.0, 95%-CI [− 3.9, 9.9], p = 0.39, d-prime β = 0.1, 95%-CI [− 0.1, 0.3], p = 0.5). Frontoparietal network FC was increased from baseline to 7-month FU in the tDCS compared to the sham group (pFDR < 0.05). Exploratory analyses showed a correlation between individual memory improvements and higher electric field magnitudes induced by tDCS (ρtDCS = 0.59, p = 0.02). Adverse events did not differ between groups, questionnaires indicated successful blinding (incidence rate ratio, 1.1, 95%-CI [0.5, 2.2]). Conclusions: In sum, cognitive training with concurrent brain stimulation, compared to cognitive training with sham stimulation, did not lead to superior performance enhancements in patients with cognitive impairment. However, we observed transferred working memory benefits in patients who underwent the full 3-week intervention. MRI data pointed toward a potential intervention-induced modulation of neural network dynamics. A link between individual performance gains and electric fields suggested dosage-dependent effects of brain stimulation. Together, our findings do not support the immediate benefit of the combined intervention on the trained function, but provide exploratory evidence for transfer effects on working memory in patients with cognitive impairment. Future research needs to explore whether individualized protocols for both training and stimulation parameters might further enhance treatment gains. Trial registration: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04265378). Registered on 7 February 2020. Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been studied extensively for its potential to enhance human cognitive functions in healthy individuals and to treat cognitive impairment in various clinical populations. However, little is known about how tDCS modulates the neural networks supporting cognition and the complex interplay with mediating factors that may explain the frequently observed variability of stimulation effects within and between studies. Moreover, research in this field has been characterized by substantial methodological variability, frequent lack of rigorous experimental control and small sample sizes, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings and translational potential of tDCS. The present manuscript aims to delineate how these important issues can be addressed within a neuroimaging context, to reveal the neural underpinnings, predictors and mediators of tDCS-induced behavioral modulation. We will focus on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), because it allows the investigation of tDCS effects with excellent spatial precision and sufficient temporal resolution across the entire brain. Moreover, high resolution structural imaging data can be acquired for precise localization of stimulation effects, verification of electrode positions on the scalp and realistic current modeling based on individual head and brain anatomy. However, the general principles outlined in this review will also be applicable to other imaging modalities. Following an introduction to the overall state-of-the-art in this field, we will discuss in more detail the underlying causes of variability in previous tDCS studies. Moreover, we will elaborate on design considerations for tDCS-fMRI studies, optimization of tDCS and imaging protocols and how to assure high-level experimental control. Two additional sections address the pressing need for more systematic investigation of tDCS effects across the healthy human lifespan and implications for tDCS studies in age-associated disease, and potential benefits of establishing large-scale, multidisciplinary consortia for more coordinated tDCS research in the future. We hope that this review will contribute to more coordinated, methodologically sound, transparent and reproducible research in this field. Ultimately, our aim is to facilitate a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which tDCS modulates human cognitive functions and more effective and individually tailored translational and clinical applications of this technique in the future., Competing Interests: MAN is in the scientific advisory board of Neuroelectrics and Précis’s. The remaining 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. The reviewer BL declared a past co-authorship with the authors AF and MAN to the handling editor., (Copyright © 2024 Meinzer, Shahbabaie, Antonenko, Blankenburg, Fischer, Hartwigsen, Nitsche, Li, Thielscher, Timmann, Waltemath, Abdelmotaleb, Kocataş, Caisachana Guevara, Batsikadze, Grundei, Cunha, Hayek, Turker, Schlitt, Shi, Khan, Burke, Riemann, Niemann and Flöel.)