52
|
Radman N, Britz J, Buetler K, Weekes BS, Spierer L, Annoni JM. Dorsolateral Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Modulates Language Processing but Does Not Facilitate Overt Second Language Word Production. Front Neurosci 2018; 12:490. [PMID: 30090054 PMCID: PMC6068342 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2017] [Accepted: 06/29/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Word retrieval in bilingual speakers partly depends on executive control systems in the left prefrontal cortex - including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We tested the hypothesis that DLPFC modulates word production of words specifically in a second language (L2) by measuring the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (anodal-tDCS) over the DLPFC on picture naming and word translation and on event-related potentials (ERPs) and their sources. Twenty-six bilingual participants with "unbalanced" proficiency in two languages were given 20 min of 1.5 mA anodal or sham tDCS (double-blind stimulation design, counterbalanced stimulation order, 1-week intersession delay). The participants then performed the following tasks: verbal and non-verbal fluency during anodal-tDCS stimulation and first and second language (L1 and L2) picture naming and translation [forward (L1 → L2) and backward (L2 → L1)] immediately after stimulation. The electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded during picture naming and translation. On the behavioral level, anodal-tDCS had an influence on non-verbal fluency but neither on verbal fluency, nor on picture naming and translation. EEG measures revealed significant interactions between Language and Stimulation on picture naming around 380 ms post-stimulus onset and Translation direction and Stimulation on translation around 530 ms post-stimulus onset. These effects suggest that L2 phonological retrieval and phoneme encoding are spatially and temporally segregated in the brain. We conclude that anodal-tDCS stimulation has an effect at a neural level on phonological processes and, critically, that DLPFC-mediated activation is a constraint on language production specifically in L2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Narges Radman
- Neurology Unit, Section of Medicine, Faculty of Science and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
- School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Juliane Britz
- Neurology Unit, Section of Medicine, Faculty of Science and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Karin Buetler
- Leenaards Memory Center, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Brendan S. Weekes
- Laboratory for Communication Science, Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
- School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Lucas Spierer
- Neurology Unit, Section of Medicine, Faculty of Science and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Jean-Marie Annoni
- Neurology Unit, Section of Medicine, Faculty of Science and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
58
|
Antal A, Alekseichuk I, Bikson M, Brockmöller J, Brunoni AR, Chen R, Cohen LG, Dowthwaite G, Ellrich J, Flöel A, Fregni F, George MS, Hamilton R, Haueisen J, Herrmann CS, Hummel FC, Lefaucheur JP, Liebetanz D, Loo CK, McCaig CD, Miniussi C, Miranda PC, Moliadze V, Nitsche MA, Nowak R, Padberg F, Pascual-Leone A, Poppendieck W, Priori A, Rossi S, Rossini PM, Rothwell J, Rueger MA, Ruffini G, Schellhorn K, Siebner HR, Ugawa Y, Wexler A, Ziemann U, Hallett M, Paulus W. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol 2017; 128:1774-1809. [PMID: 28709880 PMCID: PMC5985830 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 683] [Impact Index Per Article: 97.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2017] [Revised: 05/29/2017] [Accepted: 06/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Antal
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany.
| | - I Alekseichuk
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany
| | - M Bikson
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, New York, USA
| | - J Brockmöller
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Germany
| | - A R Brunoni
- Service of Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation, Department and Institute of Psychiatry, Laboratory of Neurosciences (LIM-27) and Interdisciplinary Center for Applied Neuromodulation University Hospital, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - R Chen
- Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto and Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - L G Cohen
- Human Cortical Physiology and Neurorehabilitation Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke NIH, Bethesda, USA
| | | | - J Ellrich
- Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; Institute of Physiology and Pathophysiology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany; EBS Technologies GmbH, Europarc Dreilinden, Germany
| | - A Flöel
- Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Greifswald, Germany
| | - F Fregni
- Spaulding Neuromodulation Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - M S George
- Brain Stimulation Division, Medical University of South Carolina, and Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - R Hamilton
- Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - J Haueisen
- Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Germany
| | - C S Herrmann
- Experimental Psychology Lab, Department of Psychology, European Medical School, Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, Germany
| | - F C Hummel
- Defitech Chair of Clinical Neuroengineering, Centre of Neuroprosthetics (CNP) and Brain Mind Institute, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Geneva, Switzerland; Defitech Chair of Clinical Neuroengineering, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL Valais), Sion, Switzerland
| | - J P Lefaucheur
- Department of Physiology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, and EA 4391, Nerve Excitability and Therapeutic Team (ENT), Faculty of Medicine, Paris Est Créteil University, Créteil, France
| | - D Liebetanz
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany
| | - C K Loo
- School of Psychiatry & Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - C D McCaig
- Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
| | - C Miniussi
- Center for Mind/Brain Sciences CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy; Cognitive Neuroscience Section, IRCCS Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy
| | - P C Miranda
- Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
| | - V Moliadze
- Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany
| | - M A Nitsche
- Department of Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany; Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Germany
| | - R Nowak
- Neuroelectrics, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F Padberg
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Munich Center for Brain Stimulation, Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich, Germany
| | - A Pascual-Leone
- Division of Cognitive Neurology, Harvard Medical Center and Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA
| | - W Poppendieck
- Department of Information Technology, Mannheim University of Applied Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
| | - A Priori
- Center for Neurotechnology and Experimental Brain Therapeutich, Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan Italy; Deparment of Clinical Neurology, University Hospital Asst Santi Paolo E Carlo, Milan, Italy
| | - S Rossi
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, Human Physiology Section and Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology Section, Brain Investigation & Neuromodulation Lab, University of Siena, Italy
| | - P M Rossini
- Area of Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University Clinic A. Gemelli, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | | | - M A Rueger
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Cologne, Germany
| | | | | | - H R Siebner
- Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Y Ugawa
- Department of Neurology, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan; Fukushima Global Medical Science Center, Advanced Clinical Research Center, Fukushima Medical University, Japan
| | - A Wexler
- Department of Science, Technology & Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - U Ziemann
- Department of Neurology & Stroke, and Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - M Hallett
- Human Motor Control Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - W Paulus
- Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
60
|
Campanella S, Schroder E, Monnart A, Vanderhasselt MA, Duprat R, Rabijns M, Kornreich C, Verbanck P, Baeken C. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Right Frontal Inferior Cortex Decreases Neural Activity Needed to Achieve Inhibition: A Double-Blind ERP Study in a Male Population. Clin EEG Neurosci 2017; 48:176-188. [PMID: 27170671 DOI: 10.1177/1550059416645977] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Inhibitory control refers to the ability to inhibit an action once it has been initiated. Impaired inhibitory control plays a key role in triggering relapse in some pathological states, such as addictions. Therefore, a major challenge of current research is to establish new methods to strengthen inhibitory control in these "high-risk" populations. In this attempt, the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC), a neural correlate crucial for inhibitory control, was modulated using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Healthy participants (n = 31) were presented with a "Go/No-go" task, a well-known paradigm to measure inhibitory control. During this task, an event-related potential (ERP) recording (T1; 32 channels) was performed. One subgroup (n = 15) was randomly assigned to a condition with tDCS (anodal electrode was placed on the rIFC and the cathodal on the neck); and the other group (n = 16) to a condition with sham (placebo) tDCS. After one 20- minute neuromodulation session, all participants were confronted again with the same ERP Go/No-go task (T2). To ensure that potential tDCS effects were specific to inhibition, ERPs to a face-detection task were also recorded at T1 and T2 in both subgroups. The rate of commission errors on the Go/No-go task was similar between T1 and T2 in both neuromodulation groups. However, the amplitude of the P3d component, indexing the inhibition function per se, was reduced at T2 as compared with T1. This effect was specific for participants in the tDCS (and not sham) condition for correctly inhibited trials. No difference in the P3 component was observable between both subgroups at T1 and T2 for the face detection task. Overall, the present data indicate that boosting the rIFC specifically enhances inhibitory skills by decreasing the neural activity needed to correctly inhibit a response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elisa Schroder
- 1 CHU Brugmann-Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Aurore Monnart
- 1 CHU Brugmann-Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Charles Kornreich
- 1 CHU Brugmann-Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Paul Verbanck
- 1 CHU Brugmann-Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Chris Baeken
- 2 Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.,3 University Hospital (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
64
|
Cancelli A, Cottone C, Tecchio F, Truong DQ, Dmochowski J, Bikson M. A simple method for EEG guided transcranial electrical stimulation without models. J Neural Eng 2016; 13:036022. [PMID: 27172063 DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There is longstanding interest in using EEG measurements to inform transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) but adoption is lacking because users need a simple and adaptable recipe. The conventional approach is to use anatomical head-models for both source localization (the EEG inverse problem) and current flow modeling (the tES forward model), but this approach is computationally demanding, requires an anatomical MRI, and strict assumptions about the target brain regions. We evaluate techniques whereby tES dose is derived from EEG without the need for an anatomical head model, target assumptions, difficult case-by-case conjecture, or many stimulation electrodes. APPROACH We developed a simple two-step approach to EEG-guided tES that based on the topography of the EEG: (1) selects locations to be used for stimulation; (2) determines current applied to each electrode. Each step is performed based solely on the EEG with no need for head models or source localization. Cortical dipoles represent idealized brain targets. EEG-guided tES strategies are verified using a finite element method simulation of the EEG generated by a dipole, oriented either tangential or radial to the scalp surface, and then simulating the tES-generated electric field produced by each model-free technique. These model-free approaches are compared to a 'gold standard' numerically optimized dose of tES that assumes perfect understanding of the dipole location and head anatomy. We vary the number of electrodes from a few to over three hundred, with focality or intensity as optimization criterion. MAIN RESULTS Model-free approaches evaluated include (1) voltage-to-voltage, (2) voltage-to-current; (3) Laplacian; and two Ad-Hoc techniques (4) dipole sink-to-sink; and (5) sink to concentric. Our results demonstrate that simple ad hoc approaches can achieve reasonable targeting for the case of a cortical dipole, remarkably with only 2-8 electrodes and no need for a model of the head. SIGNIFICANCE Our approach is verified directly only for a theoretically localized source, but may be potentially applied to an arbitrary EEG topography. For its simplicity and linearity, our recipe for model-free EEG guided tES lends itself to broad adoption and can be applied to static (tDCS), time-variant (e.g., tACS, tRNS, tPCS), or closed-loop tES.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Cancelli
- Laboratory of Electrophysiology for Translational neuroScience (LET'S)-ISTC-CNR, Italy. Institute of Neurology, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|