Search

Introduction: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique with simultaneous (during stimulation) and cumulative effects (after repeated sessions) on blood flow and neuronal metabolism. These effects remain mostly unclear especially in multiple sclerosis (MS). This work aims to elucidate brain metabolic and hemodynamic underpinnings of tDCS and its potential therapeutic impact in MS patients using quantitative tDCS-MRI., Methods: MS participants (n = 20; age = 45.4 ± 12.3 years, 7 males) underwent 3 T MRI scans before and after 20 daily sessions of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLFPC) tDCS (2.0 mA, left anodal) paired with adaptive cognitive training (aCT). During both visits, imaging measurements of cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral venous blood oxygenation (Yv) and calculated cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO 2 ) were obtained at pre-tDCS, during-tDCS and post-tDCS., Results: At baseline, significant increase from pre- to during-tDCS was observed in CMRO 2 (7.6%; p  = 0.002), CBF (11.0%; p  < 0.0001) and Yv (1.9%; p  = 0.006). At follow up, we observed an increase in pre-tDCS CMRO 2 (140.59 ± 13.83 μmol/100 g/min) compared to baseline pre-tDCS levels (128.30 ± 14.00 μmol/100 g/min; p  = 0.006). Sustained elevations in CMRO 2 and CBF into post-tDCS were also observed (tDCS lingering effects). Cumulative tDCS effects were observed in the form of sustained elevations in CMRO 2 and CBF in pre-tDCS follow up, reaching the magnitudes measured at baseline during-tDCS., Discussion: TDCS induces an acute surge in metabolic activity persisting immediately after the stimulation is removed. Moreover, treatment composed of repeated tDCS-aCT paired sessions contributes to establishing long-lasting increases in neuronal activity., Competing Interests: Soterix Medical Inc. provided the tDCS equipment used for research use. The City University of New York holds patents on brain stimulation with MB as inventor. The City University of New York holds patents on brain stimulation with AD as inventor. AD is an employee of Soterix Medical Inc. AD has equity in Soterix Medical Inc. MB has equity in Soterix Medical Inc. MB consults, received grants, assigned inventions, and/or serves on the SAB of SafeToddles, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline, Biovisics, Mecta, Lumenis, Halo Neuroscience, Google-X, i-Lumen, Humm, Allergan (Abbvie), Apple. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Muccio, Pilloni, Walton Masters, He, Krupp, Datta, Bikson, Charvet and Ge.)

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging treatment for major depression. We recruited participants with moderate-to-severe major depressive episodes for an observational clinical trial using Soterix Medical's tDCS telehealth platform as a standard of care. The acute intervention consisted of 28 sessions (5 sessions/week, 6 weeks) of the left anodal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tDCS (2.0 mA × 30 min) followed by a tapering phase of weekly sessions for 4 weeks (weeks 7-10). The n = 16 completing participants had a significant reduction in depressive symptoms by week 2 of treatment [Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Baseline : 28.00 ± 4.35 vs. Week 2: 17.12 ± 5.32, p < 0.001] with continual improvement across each biweekly timepoint. Acute intervention responder and remission rates were 75 and 63% and 88 and 81% following the taper period (week 10)., Competing Interests: The City University of New York holds patents on brain stimulation with MB and AD as inventors. MB has equity in Soterix Medical Inc., consulted, received grants, assigned inventions, and/or served on the SAB of SafeToddles, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline, Biovisics, Mecta, Lumenis, Halo Neuroscience, Google-X, i-Lumen, Humm, Allergan (Abbvie), Apple, Ybrain, Ceragem, and Remz. LC has consulted for Ybrain, Neuroelectrics, Johnson & Johnson, and Biogen. AD and KN are employees of Soterix Medical Inc. 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., (Copyright © 2023 Charvet, George, Charlson, Lustberg, Vogel-Eyny, Eilam-Stock, Cho, Best, Fernandez, Datta, Bikson, Nazim and Pilloni.)

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, races across academia and industry have been initiated to identify and develop disease modifying or preventative therapeutic strategies has been initiated. The primary focus has been on pharmacological treatment of the immune and respiratory system and the development of a vaccine. The hyperinflammatory state ("cytokine storm") observed in many cases of COVID-19 indicates a prognostically negative disease progression that may lead to respiratory distress, multiple organ failure, shock, and death. Many critically ill patients continue to be at risk for significant, long-lasting morbidity or mortality. The human immune and respiratory systems are heavily regulated by the central nervous system, and intervention in the signaling of these neural pathways may permit targeted therapeutic control of excessive inflammation and pulmonary bronchoconstriction. Several technologies, both invasive and non-invasive, are available and approved for clinical use, but have not been extensively studied in treatment of the cytokine storm in COVID-19 patients. This manuscript provides an overview of the role of the nervous system in inflammation and respiration, the current understanding of neuromodulatory techniques from preclinical and clinical studies and provides a rationale for testing non-invasive neuromodulation to modulate acute systemic inflammation and respiratory dysfunction caused by SARS-CoV-2 and potentially other pathogens. The authors of this manuscript have co-founded the International Consortium on Neuromodulation for COVID-19 to advocate for and support studies of these technologies in the current coronavirus pandemic., Competing Interests: CC is an equity holder of Convergent Medical Technologies, Inc., reports personal fees from electroCore Inc., and Spark Biomedical, and has issued and pending patents related to vagus nerve stimulation to control bleeding and inflammation. MB reports personal fees from Soterix Medical, grants from Google X, personal fees from Halo Neuroscience, outside the submitted work; in addition, he has a patent Brain Stimulation issued. MFr reports pending patent applications describing injectable electrode structures for Neuronoff, Inc., and is an employee and equity holder of Neuronoff, Inc. He further reports issued patents for selective Vagus nerve stimulation and selective electrical vagal block for regulation of autonomic functions such as heart rate and blood pressure for Boston Scientific. MFu reports personal fees from Axon Therapies, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards Life Sciences, Galvani, and Respicardia, outside the submitted work. SH is an employee and equity holder of Cala Health. NK reports a patent devices and methods for reducing inflammation using electrical stimulation pending. BS reports personal fees from electroCore, and reports patents issued and pending related to transcutaneous cervical vagus nerve stimulation. PS is an employee and equity holder of electroCore, and reports patents issued and pending related to transcutaneous cervical vagus nerve stimulation. 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., (Copyright © 2022 Czura, Bikson, Charvet, Chen, Franke, Fudim, Grigsby, Hamner, Huston, Khodaparast, Krames, Simon, Staats and Vonck.)

Background: Clinical impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) alone for Parkinson's disease (PD) is still a challenge. Thus, there is a need to synthesize available results, analyze methodologically and statistically, and provide evidence to guide tDCS in PD. Objective: Investigate isolated tDCS effect in different brain areas and number of stimulated targets on PD motor symptoms. Methods: A systematic review was carried out up to February 2021, in databases: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of science. Full text articles evaluating effect of active tDCS (anodic or cathodic) vs. sham or control on motor symptoms of PD were included. Results: Ten studies ( n = 236) were included in meta-analysis and 25 studies ( n = 405) in qualitative synthesis. The most frequently stimulated targets were dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and primary motor cortex. No significant effect was found among single targets on motor outcomes: Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III - motor aspects (MD = -0.98%, 95% CI = -10.03 to 8.07, p = 0.83, I 2 = 0%), UPDRS IV - dyskinesias (MD = -0.89%, CI 95% = -3.82 to 2.03, p = 0.55, I 2 = 0%) and motor fluctuations (MD = -0.67%, CI 95% = -2.45 to 1.11, p = 0.46, I 2 = 0%), timed up and go - gait (MD = 0.14%, CI 95% = -0.72 to 0.99, p = 0.75, I 2 = 0%), Berg Balance Scale - balance (MD = 0.73%, CI 95% = -1.01 to 2.47, p = 0.41, I 2 = 0%). There was no significant effect of single vs. multiple targets in: UPDRS III - motor aspects (MD = 2.05%, CI 95% = -1.96 to 6.06, p = 0.32, I 2 = 0%) and gait (SMD = -0.05%, 95% CI = -0.28 to 0.17, p = 0.64, I 2 = 0%). Simple univariate meta-regression analysis between treatment dosage and effect size revealed that number of sessions (estimate = -1.7, SE = 1.51, z-score = -1.18, p = 0.2, IC = -4.75 to 1.17) and cumulative time (estimate = -0.07, SE = 0.07, z-score = -0.99, p = 0.31, IC = -0.21 to 0.07) had no significant association. Conclusion: There was no significant tDCS alone short-term effect on motor function, balance, gait, dyskinesias or motor fluctuations in Parkinson's disease, regardless of brain area or targets stimulated., Competing Interests: The City University of New York holds patents on brain stimulation with MB as inventor. MB has equity in Soterix Medical Inc. MB consults, received grants, assigned inventions, and/or serves on the SAB of SafeToddles, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline, Biovisics, Mecta, Lumenis, Halo Neuroscience, Google-X, i-Lumen, Humm, Allergan (Abbvie), Apple. HS served as a consultant for Abbott, LivaNova, and Boston Scientific in the previous 5 years. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Oliveira, Araújo, Machado, Rodrigues, Bikson, Andrade, Okano, Simplicio, Pegado and Morya.)

Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice., Competing Interests: EK and SK are employed by company SzeleSTIM GmbH. JS received honoraria from SzeleSTIM GmbH and owns patents in the field of the auricular vagus nerve stimulation. EK, SK, and JS are shareholders of SzeleSTIM GmbH. 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 TS declared a shared affiliation, with no collaboration, with one of the authors HJ, to the handling editor at the time of review., (Copyright © 2021 Farmer, Strzelczyk, Finisguerra, Gourine, Gharabaghi, Hasan, Burger, Jaramillo, Mertens, Majid, Verkuil, Badran, Ventura-Bort, Gaul, Beste, Warren, Quintana, Hämmerer, Freri, Frangos, Tobaldini, Kaniusas, Rosenow, Capone, Panetsos, Ackland, Kaithwas, O'Leary, Genheimer, Jacobs, Van Diest, Schoenen, Redgrave, Fang, Deuchars, Széles, Thayer, More, Vonck, Steenbergen, Vianna, McTeague, Ludwig, Veldhuizen, De Couck, Casazza, Keute, Bikson, Andreatta, D'Agostini, Weymar, Betts, Prigge, Kaess, Roden, Thai, Schuster, Montano, Hansen, Kroemer, Rong, Fischer, Howland, Sclocco, Sellaro, Garcia, Bauer, Gancheva, Stavrakis, Kampusch, Deuchars, Wehner, Laborde, Usichenko, Polak, Zaehle, Borges, Teckentrup, Jandackova, Napadow and Koenig.)

Background: Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) morbidity is not restricted to the respiratory system, but also affects the nervous system. Non-invasive neuromodulation may be useful in the treatment of the disorders associated with COVID-19. Objective: To describe the rationale and empirical basis of the use of non-invasive neuromodulation in the management of patients with COVID-10 and related disorders. Methods: We summarize COVID-19 pathophysiology with emphasis of direct neuroinvasiveness, neuroimmune response and inflammation, autonomic balance and neurological, musculoskeletal and neuropsychiatric sequela. This supports the development of a framework for advancing applications of non-invasive neuromodulation in the management COVID-19 and related disorders. Results: Non-invasive neuromodulation may manage disorders associated with COVID-19 through four pathways: (1) Direct infection mitigation through the stimulation of regions involved in the regulation of systemic anti-inflammatory responses and/or autonomic responses and prevention of neuroinflammation and recovery of respiration; (2) Amelioration of COVID-19 symptoms of musculoskeletal pain and systemic fatigue; (3) Augmenting cognitive and physical rehabilitation following critical illness; and (4) Treating outbreak-related mental distress including neurological and psychiatric disorders exacerbated by surrounding psychosocial stressors related to COVID-19. The selection of the appropriate techniques will depend on the identified target treatment pathway. Conclusion: COVID-19 infection results in a myriad of acute and chronic symptoms, both directly associated with respiratory distress (e.g., rehabilitation) or of yet-to-be-determined etiology (e.g., fatigue). Non-invasive neuromodulation is a toolbox of techniques that based on targeted pathways and empirical evidence (largely in non-COVID-19 patients) can be investigated in the management of patients with COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 Baptista, Baltar, Okano, Moreira, Campos, Fernandes, Brunoni, Badran, Tanaka, de Andrade, da Silva Machado, Morya, Trujillo, Swami, Camprodon, Monte-Silva, Sá, Nunes, Goulardins, Bikson, Sudbrack-Oliveira, de Carvalho, Duarte-Moreira, Pagano, Shinjo and Zana.)

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the urgent need to develop and deploy treatment approaches that can minimize mortality and morbidity. As infection, resulting illness, and the often prolonged recovery period continue to be characterized, therapeutic roles for transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) have emerged as promising non-pharmacological interventions. tES techniques have established therapeutic potential for managing a range of conditions relevant to COVID-19 illness and recovery, and may further be relevant for the general management of increased mental health problems during this time. Furthermore, these tES techniques can be inexpensive, portable, and allow for trained self-administration. Here, we summarize the rationale for using tES techniques, specifically transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), across the COVID-19 clinical course, and index ongoing efforts to evaluate the inclusion of tES optimal clinical care., (Copyright © 2020 Pilloni, Bikson, Badran, George, Kautz, Okano, Baptista and Charvet.)

Despite being a popular neuromodulation technique, clinical translation of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is hampered by variable responses observed within treatment cohorts. Addressing this challenge has been difficult due to the lack of an effective means of mapping the neuromodulatory electromagnetic fields together with the brain's response. In this study, we present a novel imaging technique that provides the capability of concurrently mapping markers of tDCS currents, as well as the brain's response to tDCS. A dual-echo echo-planar imaging (DE-EPI) sequence is used, wherein the phase of the acquired MRI-signal encodes the tDCS current induced magnetic field, while the magnitude encodes the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) contrast. The proposed technique was first validated in a custom designed phantom. Subsequent test-retest experiments in human participants showed that tDCS-induced magnetic fields can be detected reliably in vivo . The concurrently acquired BOLD data revealed large-scale networks characteristic of a brain in resting-state as well as a 'cathodal' and an 'anodal' resting-state component under each electrode. Moreover, 'cathodal's BOLD-signal was observed to significantly decrease with the applied current at the group level in all datasets. With its ability to image markers of electromagnetic cause as well as neurophysiological changes, the proposed technique may provide an effective means to visualize neural engagement in tDCS at the group level. Our technique also contributes to addressing confounding factors in applying BOLD fMRI concurrently with tDCS., (Copyright © 2020 Jog, Jann, Yan, Huang, Parra, Narr, Bikson and Wang.)

Neonates born premature or who suffer brain injury at birth often have oral feeding dysfunction and do not meet oral intake requirements needed for discharge. Low oral intake volumes result in extended stays in the hospital (>2 months) and can lead to surgical implant and explant of a gastrostomy tube (G-tube). Prior work suggests pairing vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) with motor activity accelerates functional improvements after stroke, and transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) has emerged as promising noninvasive form of VNS. Pairing taVNS with bottle-feeding rehabilitation may improve oromotor coordination and lead to improved oral intake volumes, ultimately avoiding the need for G-tube placement. We investigated whether taVNS paired with oromotor rehabilitation is tolerable and safe and facilitates motor learning in infants who have failed oral feeding. We enrolled 14 infants [11 premature and 3 hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE)] who were slated for G-tube placement in a prospective, open-label study of taVNS-paired rehabilitation to increase feeding volumes. Once-daily taVNS was delivered to the left tragus during bottle feeding for 2 weeks, with optional extension. The primary outcome was attainment of oral feeding volumes and weight gain adequate for discharge without G-tube while also monitoring discomfort and heart rate (HR) as safety outcomes. We observed no adverse events related to stimulation, and stimulation-induced HR reductions were transient and safe and likely confirmed vagal engagement. Eight of 14 participants (57%) achieved adequate feeding volumes for discharge without G-tube (mean treatment length: 16 ± 6 days). We observed significant increases in feeding volume trajectories in responders compared with pre-stimulation ( p < 0.05). taVNS-paired feeding rehabilitation appears safe and may improve oral feeding in infants with oromotor dyscoordination, increasing the rate of discharge without G-tube, warranting larger controlled trials., (Copyright © 2020 Badran, Jenkins, Cook, Thompson, Dancy, DeVries, Mappin, Summers, Bikson and George.)

The current clinical investigation examined high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) as a focal, non-invasive, anti-epileptic treatment in a child with early-onset epileptic encephalopathy. We investigated the clinical impact of repetitive (20 daily sessions) cathode-centered 4 × 1 HD-tDCS (1 mA, 20 min, 4 mm ring radius) over the dominant seizure-generating cortical zone in a 40-month-old child suffering from a severe neonatal epileptic syndrome known as Ohtahara syndrome (OS). Seizures and epileptiform activity were monitored and quantified using video-EEG over multiple days of baseline, intervention, and post-intervention periods. Primary outcome measures were changes in seizure frequency and duration on the last day of intervention versus the last baseline day, preceding the intervention. In particular, we examined changes in tonic spasms, tonic-myoclonic seizures (TM-S), and myoclonic seizures from baseline to post-intervention. A trend in TM-S frequency was observed indicating a reduction of 73% in TM-S frequency, which was non-significant [ t (4) = 2.05, p = 0.1], and denoted a clinically significant change. Myoclonic seizure (M-S) frequency was significantly reduced [ t (4) = 3.83, p = 0.019] by 68.42%, compared to baseline, and indicated a significant clinical change as well. A 73% decrease in interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) frequency was also observed immediately after the intervention period, compared to IED frequency at 3 days prior to intervention. Post-intervention seizure-related peak delta desynchronization was reduced by 57%. Our findings represent a case-specific significant clinical response, reduction in IED, and change in seizure-related delta activity following the application of HD-tDCS. The clinical outcomes, as noted in the current study, encourage the further investigation of this focal, non-invasive neuromodulation procedure in other severe electroclinical syndromes (e.g., West syndrome) and in larger pediatric populations diagnosed with early-onset epileptic encephalopathy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02960347, protocol ID: Meiron 2013-4.

Background: Using conventional tDCS over the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) we previously reported that it is possible to manipulate subjective visual vertical (SVV) and postural control. We also demonstrated that high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) can achieve substantially greater cortical stimulation focality than conventional tDCS. However, it is critical to establish dose-response effects using well-defined protocols with relevance to clinically meaningful applications. Objective: To conduct three pilot studies investigating polarity and intensity-dependent effects of HD-tDCS over the right TPJ on behavioral and physiological outcome measures in healthy subjects. We additionally aimed to establish the feasibility, safety, and tolerability of this stimulation protocol. Methods: We designed three separate randomized, double-blind, crossover phase I clinical trials in different cohorts of healthy adults using the same stimulation protocol. The primary outcome measure for trial 1 was SVV; trial 2, weight-bearing asymmetry (WBA); and trial 3, electroencephalography power spectral density (EEG-PSD). The HD-tDCS montage comprised a single central, and 3 surround electrodes (HD-tDCS3x1) over the right TPJ. For each study, we tested 3x2 min HD-tDCS3x1 at 1, 2 and 3 mA; with anode center, cathode center, or sham stimulation, in random order across days. Results: We found significant SVV deviation relative to baseline, specific to the cathode center condition, with consistent direction and increasing with stimulation intensity. We further showed significant WBA with direction governed by stimulation polarity (cathode center, left asymmetry; anode center, right asymmetry). EEG-PSD in the gamma band was significantly increased at 3 mA under the cathode. Conclusions: The present series of studies provide converging evidence for focal neuromodulation that can modify physiology and have behavioral consequences with clinical potential.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) delivered in multiple sessions can reduce symptom burden, but access of chronically ill patients to tDCS studies is constrained by the burden of office-based tDCS administration. Expanded access to this therapy can be accomplished through the development of interventions that allow at-home tDCS applications. Objective: We describe the development and initial feasibility assessment of a novel intervention for the chronically ill that combines at-home tDCS with telehealth support. Methods: In the developmental phase, the tDCS procedure was adjusted for easy application by patients or their informal caregivers at home, and a tDCS protocol with specific elements for enhanced safety and remote adherence monitoring was created. Lay language instructional materials were written and revised based on expert feedback. The materials were loaded onto a tablet allowing for secure video-conferencing. The telehealth tablet was paired with an at-home tDCS device that allowed for remote dose control via electronic codes dispensed to patients prior to each session. tDCS was delivered in two phases: once daily on 10 consecutive days, followed by an as needed regimen for 20 days. Initial feasibility of this tDCS-telehealth system was evaluated in four patients with advanced chronic illness and multiple symptoms. Change in symptom burden and patient satisfaction were assessed with the Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (CMSAS) and a tDCS user survey. Results: The telehealth-tDCS protocol includes one home visit and has seven patient-tailored elements and six elements enhancing safety monitoring. Replicable electrode placement at home without 10-20 EEG measurement is achieved via a headband that holds electrodes in a pre-determined position. There were no difficulties with patients' training, protocol adherence, or tolerability. A total of 60 tDCS sessions were applied. No session required discontinuation, and there were no adverse events. Data collection was feasible and there were no missing data. Satisfaction with the tDCS-telehealth procedure was high and the patients were comfortable using the system. Conclusion: At-home tDCS with telehealth support appears to be a feasible approach for the management of symptom burden in patients with chronic illness. Further studies to evaluate and optimize the protocol effectiveness for symptom-control outcomes are warranted.

We use auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) to illustrate the challenges in defining and assessing target engagement in the context of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for psychiatric disorders. We defined the target network as the cluster of regions of interest (ROIs) that are consistently implicated in AVH based on the conjunction of multimodal meta-analytic neuroimaging data. These were prescribed in the New York Head (a population derived model) and head models of four single individuals. We appraised two potential measures of target engagement, tDCS-induced peak electric field strength and tDCS-modulated volume defined as the percentage of the volume of the AVH network exposed to electric field magnitude stronger than the postulated threshold for neuronal excitability. We examined a left unilateral (LUL) montage targeting the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and temporoparietal junction (TPJ), a bilateral (BL) prefrontal montage, and a 2 × 1 montage targeting the left PFC and the TPJ bilaterally. Using computational modeling, we estimated the peak electric field strength and modulated volume induced by each montage for current amplitudes ranging 1-4 mA. We found that the LUL montage was inferior to both other montages in terms of peak electric field strength in right-sided AVH-ROIs. The BL montage was inferior to both other montages in terms of modulated volume of the left-sided AVH-ROIs. As the modulated volume is non-linear, its variability between montages reduced for current amplitudes above 3 mA. These findings illustrate how computational target engagement for tDCS can be tailored to specific networks and provide a principled approach for future study design.

Objective : Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is one of the methods described in the literature to decrease the perceived loudness and distress caused by tinnitus. However, the main effect is not clear and the number of responders to the treatment is variable. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effect of the placement of the cathode on the outcome measurements. Methods : Patients considered for the trial were chronic non-pulsatile tinnitus patients with complaints for more than 3 months and a Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) score that exceeded 25. The anode was placed on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). In the first group-"bifrontal"-the cathode was placed on the left DLPFC, while in the second group-"shoulder"-the cathode was placed on the shoulder. Each patient received two sessions of tDCS weekly and eight sessions in total. Evaluations took place on the first visit for an ENT consultation, at the start of therapy, after eight sessions of tDCS and at the follow-up visit, which took place 84 days after the start of the therapy. Subjective outcome measures such as TFI, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for loudness and percentage of consciousness of tinnitus were administered in every patient. Results : There was no difference in the results for tinnitus loudness and the distress experienced between the placement of the cathode on the left DLPFC or on the shoulder. In addition, no statistically significant overall effect was found between the four test points. However, up to 39.1% of the patients experienced a decrease in loudness, measured by the VAS for loudness. Moreover, 72% of those in the bifrontal group, but only 46.2% of those in the shoulder group reported some improvement in distress. Conclusion : While some improvement was noted, this was not statistically significant. Both electrode placements stimulated the right side of the hippocampus, which could be responsible for the effect found in both groups. Further research should rule out the placebo effect and investigate alternative electrode positions.

Background : Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is investigated to modulate neuronal function including cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychiatric therapies. While cases of human stimulation with rudimentary batteries date back more than 200 years, clinical trials with current controlled stimulation were published intermittently since the 1960s. The modern era of tDCS only started after 1998. Objectives : To review methods and outcomes of tDCS studies from old literature (between 1960 and 1998) with intention of providing new insight for ongoing tDCS trials and development of tDCS protocols especially for the purpose of treatment. Methods : Articles were identified through a search in PubMed and through the reference list from its selected articles. We included only non-invasive human studies that provided controlled direct current and were written in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese before the year of 1998, the date in which modern stimulation paradigms were implemented. Results : Fifteen articles met our criteria. The majority were small-randomized controlled clinical trials that enrolled a mean of approximately 26 subjects (Phase II studies). Most of the studies (around 83%) assessed the role of tDCS in the treatment of psychiatric conditions, in which the main outcomes were measured by means of behavioral scales and clinical observation, but the diagnostic precision and the quality of outcome monitoring, including adverse events, were deficient by modern standards. Compared to modern tDCS dose, the stimulation intensities used (0.1-1 mA) were lower, however as the electrodes were typically smaller (e.g., 1.26 cm 2 ), the average electrode current density (0.2 mA/cm 2 ) was approximately 4× higher. The number of sessions ranged from one to 120 (median 14). Notably, the stimulation session durations of several minutes to 11 h (median 4.5 h) could markedly exceed modern tDCS protocols. Twelve studies out of 15 showed positive results. Only mild side effects were reported, with headache and skin alterations the most common. Conclusion : Most of the studies identified were for psychiatric indications, especially in patients with depression and/or schizophrenia and majority indicated some positive results. Variability in outcome is noted across trials and within trials across subjects, but overall results were reported as encouraging, and consistent with modern efforts, given some responders and mild side effects. The significant difference with modern dose, low current with smaller electrode size and interestingly much longer stimulation duration may worth considering.

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies promise to modulate cortical regions associated with pain, the electric current produced usually spreads beyond the area of the electrodes' placement. Using a forward-model analysis, this study compared the neuroanatomic location and strength of the predicted electric current peaks, at cortical and subcortical levels, induced by conventional and High-Definition-tDCS (HD-tDCS) montages developed for migraine and other chronic pain disorders. The electrodes were positioned in accordance with the 10-20 or 10-10 electroencephalogram (EEG) landmarks: motor cortex-supraorbital (M1-SO, anode and cathode over C3 and Fp2, respectively), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) bilateral (DLPFC, anode over F3, cathode over F4), vertex-occipital cortex (anode over Cz and cathode over Oz), HD-tDCS 4 × 1 (one anode on C3, and four cathodes over Cz, F3, T7, and P3) and HD-tDCS 2 × 2 (two anodes over C3/C5 and two cathodes over FC3/FC5). M1-SO produced a large current flow in the PFC. Peaks of current flow also occurred in deeper brain structures, such as the cingulate cortex, insula, thalamus and brainstem. The same structures received significant amount of current with Cz-Oz and DLPFC tDCS. However, there were differences in the current flow to outer cortical regions. The visual cortex, cingulate and thalamus received the majority of the current flow with the Cz-Oz, while the anterior parts of the superior and middle frontal gyri displayed an intense amount of current with DLPFC montage. HD-tDCS montages enhanced the focality, producing peaks of current in subcortical areas at negligible levels. This study provides novel information regarding the neuroanatomical distribution and strength of the electric current using several tDCS montages applied for migraine and pain control. Such information may help clinicians and researchers in deciding the most appropriate tDCS montage to treat each pain disorder.

The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is cumulative. Treatment protocols typically require multiple consecutive sessions spanning weeks or months. However, traveling to clinic for a tDCS session can present an obstacle to subjects and their caregivers. With modified devices and headgear, tDCS treatment can be administered remotely under clinical supervision, potentially enhancing recruitment, throughput, and convenience. Here we propose standards and protocols for clinical trials utilizing remotely-supervised tDCS with the goal of providing safe, reproducible and well-tolerated stimulation therapy outside of the clinic. The recommendations include: (1) training of staff in tDCS treatment and supervision; (2) assessment of the user's capability to participate in tDCS remotely; (3) ongoing training procedures and materials including assessments of the user and/or caregiver; (4) simple and fail-safe electrode preparation techniques and tDCS headgear; (5) strict dose control for each session; (6) ongoing monitoring to quantify compliance (device preparation, electrode saturation/placement, stimulation protocol), with corresponding corrective steps as required; (7) monitoring for treatment-emergent adverse effects; (8) guidelines for discontinuation of a session and/or study participation including emergency failsafe procedures tailored to the treatment population's level of need. These guidelines are intended to provide a minimal level of methodological rigor for clinical trials seeking to apply tDCS outside a specialized treatment center. We outline indication-specific applications (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Depression, Multiple Sclerosis, Palliative Care) following these recommendations that support a standardized framework for evaluating the tolerability and reproducibility of remote-supervised tDCS that, once established, will allow for translation of tDCS clinical trials to a greater size and range of patient populations.

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated mainly in adults and doses may not be appropriate in pediatric applications. In perinatal stroke where potential applications are promising, rational adaptation of dosage for children remains under investigation., Objective: Construct child-specific tDCS dosing parameters through case study within a perinatal stroke tDCS safety and feasibility trial., Methods: 10-year-old subject with a diagnosis of presumed perinatal ischemic stroke and hemiparesis was identified. T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans used to derive computerized model for current flow and electrode positions. Workflow using modeling results and consideration of dosage in previous clinical trials was incorporated. Prior ad hoc adult montages vs. de novo optimized montages provided distinct risk benefit analysis. Approximating adult dose required consideration of changes in both peak brain current flow and distribution which further tradeoff between maximizing efficacy and adding safety factors. Electrode size, position, current intensity, compliance voltage, and duration were controlled independently in this process., Results: Brain electric fields modeled and compared to values previously predicted models (Datta et al., 2011; Minhas et al., 2012). Approximating conservative brain current flow patterns and intensities used in previous adult trials for comparable indications, the optimal current intensity established was 0.7 mA for 10 min with a tDCS C3/C4 montage. Specifically 0.7 mA produced comparable peak brain current intensity of an average adult receiving 1.0 mA. Electrode size of 5 × 7 cm(2) with 1.0 mA and low-voltage tDCS was employed to maximize tolerability. Safety and feasibility confirmed with subject tolerating the session well and no serious adverse events., Conclusion: Rational approaches to dose customization, with steps informed by computational modeling, may improve guidance for pediatric stroke tDCS trials.

There is a need to facilitate acquisition of real world cognitive multi-tasks that require long periods of training (e.g., air traffic control, intelligence analysis, medicine). Non-invasive brain stimulation-specifically transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)-has promise as a method to speed multi-task training. We hypothesized that during acquisition of the complex multi-task Space Fortress, subtasks that require focused attention on ship control would benefit from tDCS aimed at the dorsal attention network while subtasks that require redirection of attention would benefit from tDCS aimed at the right hemisphere ventral attention network. We compared effects of 30 min prefrontal and parietal stimulation to right and left hemispheres on subtask performance during the first 45 min of training. The strongest effects both overall and for ship flying (control and velocity subtasks) were seen with a right parietal (C4, reference to left shoulder) montage, shown by modeling to induce an electric field that includes nodes in both dorsal and ventral attention networks. This is consistent with the re-orienting hypothesis that the ventral attention network is activated along with the dorsal attention network if a new, task-relevant event occurs while visuospatial attention is focused (Corbetta et al., 2008). No effects were seen with anodes over sites that stimulated only dorsal (C3) or only ventral (F10) attention networks. The speed subtask (update memory for symbols) benefited from an F9 anode over left prefrontal cortex. These results argue for development of tDCS as a training aid in real world settings where multi-tasking is critical.

Background: High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS) allows for non-invasive neuromodulation using an array of compact (approximately 1 cm(2) contact area) "High-Definition" (HD) electrodes, as compared to conventional tDCS (which uses two large pads that are approximately 35 cm(2)). In a previous transcutaneous study, we developed and validated designs for HD electrodes that reduce discomfort over >20 min session with 2 mA electrode current., Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of a chemical pretreatment with 6% benzocaine (topical numbing agent) to further reduce subjective discomfort during transcutaneous stimulation and to allow for better sham controlled studies., Methods: Pre-treatment with 6% benzocaine was compared with control (no pretreatment) for 22 min 2 mA of stimulation, with either CCNY-4 or Lectron II electroconductive gel, for both cathodal and anodal transcutaneous (forearm) stimulation (eight different combinations)., Results: RESULTS show that for all conditions and polarities tested, stimulation with HD electrodes is safe and well tolerated and that pretreatment further reduced subjective discomfort., Conclusion: Pretreatment with a mild analgesic reduces discomfort during HD-tDCS.

It has been well established in animal models that electrical fields generated during inter-ictal and ictal discharges are strong enough in intensity to influence action potential firing threshold and synchronization. We discuss recently published data from microelectrode array recordings of human neocortical seizures and speculate about the possible role of field effects in neuronal synchronization. We have identified two distinct seizure territories that cannot be easily distinguished by traditional EEG analysis. The ictal core exhibits synchronized neuronal burst firing, while the surrounding ictal penumbra exhibits asynchronous and relatively sparse neuronal activity. In the ictal core large amplitude rhythmic ictal discharges produce large electric fields that correspond with highly synchronous neuronal firing. In the penumbra rhythmic ictal discharges are smaller in amplitude, but large enough to influence spike timing, yet neuronal synchrony is not observed. These in homine observations are in accord with decades of animal studies supporting a role of field effects in neuronal synchronization during seizures, yet also highlight how field effects may be negated in the presence of strong synaptic inhibition in the penumbra.

Rhythmic neuronal activity is ubiquitous in the human brain. These rhythms originate from a variety of different network mechanisms, which give rise to a wide-ranging spectrum of oscillation frequencies. In the last few years an increasing number of clinical research studies have explored transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) with weak current as a tool for affecting brain function. The premise of these interventions is that tACS will interact with ongoing brain oscillations. However, the exact mechanisms by which weak currents could affect neuronal oscillations at different frequency bands are not well known and this, in turn, limits the rational optimization of human experiments. Here we review the available in vitro and in vivo animal studies that attempt to provide mechanistic explanations. The findings can be summarized into a few generic principles, such as periodic modulation of excitability, shifts in spike timing, modulation of firing rate, and shifts in the balance of excitation and inhibition. These effects result from weak but simultaneous polarization of a large number of neurons. Whether this can lead to an entrainment or a modulation of brain oscillations, or whether AC currents have no effect at all, depends entirely on the specific dynamic that gives rise to the different brain rhythms, as discussed here for slow wave oscillations (∼1 Hz) and gamma oscillations (∼30 Hz). We conclude with suggestions for further experiments to investigate the role of AC stimulation for other physiologically relevant brain rhythms.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is investigated for a broad range of neuropsychiatric indications, various rehabilitation applications, and to modulate cognitive performance in diverse tasks. Specificity of tDCS refers broadly to the ability of tDCS to produce precise, as opposed to diffuse, changes in brain function. Practically, specificity of tDCS implies application-specific customization of protocols to maximize desired outcomes and minimize undesired effects. Especially given the simplicity of tDCS and the complexity of brain function, understanding the mechanisms leading to specificity is fundamental to the rational advancement of tDCS. We define the origins of specificity based on anatomical and functional factors. Anatomical specificity derives from guiding current to targeted brain structures. Functional specificity may derive from either activity-selectivity, where active neuronal networks are preferentially modulated by tDCS, or input-selectivity, where bias is applied to different synaptic inputs. Rational advancement of tDCS may require leveraging all forms of specificity.

The transcranial application of weak currents to the human brain has enjoyed a decade of widespread use, providing a simple and powerful tool for non-invasively altering human brain function. However, our understanding of current delivery and its impact upon neural circuitry leaves much to be desired. We argue that the credibility of conclusions drawn with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is contingent upon realistic explanations of how tDCS works, and that our present understanding of tDCS limits the technique's use to localize function in the human brain. We outline two central issues where progress is required: the localization of currents, and predicting their functional consequence. We encourage experimenters to eschew simplistic explanations of mechanisms of transcranial current stimulation. We suggest the use of individualized current modeling, together with computational neurostimulation to inform mechanistic frameworks in which to interpret the physiological impact of tDCS. We hope that through mechanistically richer descriptions of current flow and action, insight into the biological processes by which transcranial currents influence behavior can be gained, leading to more effective stimulation protocols and empowering conclusions drawn with tDCS.

Background: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, versatile, and safe neuromodulation technology under investigation for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, adjunct to rehabilitation, and cognitive enhancement in healthy adults. Despite promising results, there is variability in responsiveness. One potential source of variability is the intensity of current delivered to the brain which is a function of both the operator controlled tDCS dose (electrode montage and total applied current) and subject specific anatomy. We are interested in both the scale of this variability across anatomical typical adults and methods to normalize inter-individual variation by customizing tDCS dose. Computational FEM simulations are a standard technique to predict brain current flow during tDCS and can be based on subject specific anatomical MRI., Objective: To investigate this variability, we modeled multiple tDCS montages across three adults (ages 34-41, one female)., Results: Conventional pad stimulation led to diffuse modulation with maximum current flow between the pads across all subjects. There was high current flow directly under the pad for one subject while the location of peak induced cortical current flow was variable. The High-Definition tDCS montage led to current flow restricted to within the ring perimeter across all subjects. The current flow profile across all subjects and montages was influenced by details in cortical gyri/sulci., Conclusion: This data suggests that subject specific modeling can facilitate consistent and more efficacious tDCS.