Investigating the interaction between white matter and brain state on tDCS-induced changes in brain network activity

Multimodal response-predictor analysis for three non-invasive brain stimulation protocols

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods such as paired associative stimulation (PAS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) are used to modulate cortical excitability and reduce symptoms in a variety of psychiatric disorders. Recent studies have shown significant inter-individual variability in the physiological response to these techniques when they are applied over the hand representation of primary motor cortex (M1hand). The goal of the present study was to identify neurophysiological, neuroanatomical, and neurochemical baseline characteristics that may predict response to commonly used NIBS protocols using data from a previously published study (Therrien-Blanchet et al., 2023). To this end, PAS, anodal tDCS, and 20-Hz tACS were administered to healthy participants in a repeated measures design. Pre/Post differences in transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced input-output curves were used to quantify changes in corticospinal excitability. Primary predictors were late I-wave latency, cortical thickness (CT) of M1hand, and fractional anisotropy of the corticospinal tract (CSThand) originating from M1hand. Secondary exploratory analysis was performed with CT in areas outside motor cortex, diffusion MRI (dMRI) metrics of the CSThand, magnetic resonance spectroscopy measurements of GABA, glutamate, and n-acetyl aspartate of M1hand, baseline corticospinal excitability, and cranial circumference. Multiple regression analysis showed that none of the primary variables predicted intervention outcome for any of the NIBS protocols. Exploratory analysis revealed no significant correlation between predictor variables and PAS outcome. tDCS and tACS were significantly correlated with some baseline measures. These data suggest that modulation of cortical excitability following several NIBS protocols may not be easily predicted by baseline characteristics, underscoring the need for a better understanding of their mechanism of action. Significant exploratory associations need to be confirmed in larger samples and confirmatory designs.

Is non-invasive neuromodulation a viable technique to improve neuroplasticity in individuals with acquired brain injury? A review

Objective

This study aimed to explore and evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a standalone or coupled intervention and understand its mechanisms to produce positive alterations in neuroplasticity and behavioral outcomes after acquired brain injury (ABI).

Data sources

Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases were searched from January 2013 to January 2024.

Study selection

Using the PICO framework, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective, pilot, open-label, and observational large group and single-participant case studies were included. Two authors reviewed articles according to pre-established inclusion criteria.

Data extraction

Data related to participant and intervention characteristics, mechanisms of change, methods, and outcomes were extracted by two authors. The two authors performed quality assessments using SORT.

Results

Twenty-two studies involving 657 participants diagnosed with ABIs were included. Two studies reported that NIBS was ineffective in producing positive alterations or behavioral outcomes. Twenty studies reported at least one, or a combination of, positively altered neuroplasticity and improved neuropsychological, neuropsychiatric, motor, or somatic symptoms. Twenty-eight current articles between 2020 and 2024 have been studied to elucidate potential mechanisms of change related to NIBS and other mediating or confounding variables.

Discussion

tDCS and TMS may be efficacious as standalone interventions or coupled with neurorehabilitation therapies to positively alter maladaptive brain physiology and improve behavioral symptomology resulting from ABI. Based on postintervention and follow-up results, evidence suggests NIBS may offer a direct or mediatory contribution to improving behavioral outcomes post-ABI.

Conclusion

More research is needed to better understand the extent of rTMS and tDCS application in affecting changes in symptoms after ABI.

Investigating the neural mechanisms of transcranial direct current stimulation effects on human cognition: current issues and potential solutions

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.

Transcranial electrical stimulation during functional magnetic resonance imaging in patients with genetic generalized epilepsy: a pilot and feasibility study

Objective

A third of patients with epilepsy continue to have seizures despite receiving adequate antiseizure medication. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) might be a viable adjunct treatment option, having been shown to reduce epileptic seizures in patients with focal epilepsy. Evidence for the use of tDCS in genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) is scarce. We aimed to establish the feasibility of applying tDCS during fMRI in patients with GGE to study the acute neuromodulatory effects of tDCS, particularly on sensorimotor network activity.

Methods

Seven healthy controls and three patients with GGE received tDCS with simultaneous fMRI acquisition while watching a movie. Three tDCS conditions were applied: anodal, cathodal and sham. Periods of 60 s without stimulation were applied between each stimulation condition. Changes in sensorimotor cortex connectivity were evaluated by calculating the mean degree centrality across eight nodes of the sensorimotor cortex defined by the Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas (primary motor cortex (precentral left and right), supplementary motor area (left and right), mid-cingulum (left and right), postcentral gyrus (left and right)), across each of the conditions, for each participant.

Results

Simultaneous tDCS-fMRI was well tolerated in both healthy controls and patients without adverse effects. Anodal and cathodal stimulation reduced mean degree centrality of the sensorimotor network (Friedman's ANOVA with Dunn's multiple comparisons test; adjusted p = 0.02 and p = 0.03 respectively). Mean degree connectivity of the sensorimotor network during the sham condition was not different to the rest condition (adjusted p = 0.94).

Conclusion

Applying tDCS during fMRI was shown to be feasible and safe in a small group of patients with GGE. Anodal and cathodal stimulation caused a significant reduction in network connectivity of the sensorimotor cortex across participants. This initial research supports the feasibility of using fMRI to guide and understand network modulation by tDCS that might facilitate its clinical application in GGE in the future.

The two-back task leads to activity in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in schizophrenia patients with predominant negative symptoms: a fNIRS study and its implication for tDCS

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has shown some potential as an adjunctive intervention for ameliorating negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but its efficacy requires optimization. Recently, 'functional targeting' of stimulation holds promise for advancing tDCS efficacy by coupling tDCS with a cognitive task where the target brain regions are activated by that task and further specifically polarized by tDCS.The study used 48-channel functional near infra-red spectroscopy (fNIRS) aiming to determine a cognitive task that can effectively induce a cortical activation of the left DLPFC in schizophrenia patients with predominant negative symptoms before running a tDCS trial. Sixty schizophrenia patients with predominant negative symptoms completed measures of clinical and psychosocial functioning characteristics and assessments across cognitive domains. Hemodynamic changes during n-back working memory tasks with different cognitive loads (1-back and 2-back) and verbal fluency test (VFT) were measured using fNIRS. For n-back tasks, greater signal changes were found when the task required elevated cognitive load. One sample t-test revealed that only 2-back task elicited significant activation in left DLPFC (t = 4.23, FDR-corrected p = 0.0007). During VFT, patients failed to show significant task-related activity in left DLPFC (one sample t-test, t = -0.25, FDR-corrected p > 0.05). Our study implies that 2-back task can effectively activate left DLPFC in schizophrenia patients with predominant negative symptoms. This neurophysiologically-validated task is considered highly potential to be executed in conjunction with high-definition tDCS for "functional targeting" of the left DLPFC to treat negative symptoms in a double-blind randomized sham-control trial, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (ID: NCT05582980).

White matter predicts tDCS antidepressant effects in a sham-controlled clinical trial study

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used as treatment for depression, but its effects are heterogeneous. We investigated, in a subsample of the clinical trial Escitalopram versus Electrical Direct Current Therapy for Depression Study (ELECTTDCS), whether white matter areas associated with depression disorder were associated with tDCS response. Baseline diffusion tensor imaging data were analyzed from 49 patients (34 females, mean age 41.9) randomized to escitalopram 20 mg/day, tDCS (2 mA, 30 min, 22 sessions), or placebo. Antidepressant outcomes were assessed by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS) after 10-week treatment. We used whole-brain tractography for extracting white matter measures for anterior corpus callosum, and bilaterally for cingulum bundle, striato-frontal, inferior occipito-frontal fasciculus and uncinate. For the rostral body, tDCS group showed higher MD associated with antidepressant effects (estimate = -5.13 ± 1.64, p = 0.002), and tDCS significantly differed from the placebo and the escitalopram group. The left striato-frontal tract showed higher FA associated with antidepressant effects (estimate = -2.14 ± 0.72, p = 0.003), and tDCS differed only from the placebo group. For the right uncinate, the tDCS group lower AD values were associated with higher HDRS decrease (estimate = -1.45 ± 0.67, p = 0.031). Abnormalities in white matter MDD-related areas are associated with tDCS antidepressant effects. Suggested better white matter microstructure of the left prefrontal cortex was associated with tDCS antidepressant effects. Future studies should investigate whether these findings are driven by electric field diffusion and density in these areas.

Moving from phenomenological to predictive modelling: Progress and pitfalls of modelling brain stimulation in-silico

Brain stimulation is an increasingly popular neuromodulatory tool used in both clinical and research settings; however, the effects of brain stimulation, particularly those of non-invasive stimulation, are variable. This variability can be partially explained by an incomplete mechanistic understanding, coupled with a combinatorial explosion of possible stimulation parameters. Computational models constitute a useful tool to explore the vast sea of stimulation parameters and characterise their effects on brain activity. Yet the utility of modelling stimulation in-silico relies on its biophysical relevance, which needs to account for the dynamics of large and diverse neural populations and how underlying networks shape those collective dynamics. The large number of parameters to consider when constructing a model is no less than those needed to consider when planning empirical studies. This piece is centred on the application of phenomenological and biophysical models in non-invasive brain stimulation. We first introduce common forms of brain stimulation and computational models, and provide typical construction choices made when building phenomenological and biophysical models. Through the lens of four case studies, we provide an account of the questions these models can address, commonalities, and limitations across studies. We conclude by proposing future directions to fully realise the potential of computational models of brain stimulation for the design of personalized, efficient, and effective stimulation strategies.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Upper Limb Muscle Strength and Endurance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve upper limb muscle strength and endurance in healthy subjects is still controversial. This article reviews the relevant literature on the use of tDCS to improve upper limb muscle strength and endurance in healthy individuals.

Methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science until September 4, 2021. Randomized parallel or crossover experimental studies on the effects of tDCS on upper limb muscle strength and endurance in healthy individuals were included. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to evaluate methodological quality and analyze the combined effect of the included literature.

Results

Twelve studies (189 participants) were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies (146 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, the tDCS intervention had no significant effect on improving upper limb muscle strength [I² = 0%, 95% CI (−0.79, 0.23), p = 0.98, MD = 0.01]. In this analysis, tDCS had a significant heterogeneity (I² = 87%) in improving upper limb muscle endurance compared with the control group. After the subgroup analysis and the sensitivity analysis, the source of heterogeneity was excluded. The final results showed that tDCS had a significant effect on improving upper limb muscle endurance [I² = 0%, 95% CI (1.91, 4.83), p < 0.00001, MD = 3.37].

Conclusions

tDCS has no significant effect on improvement of upper limb muscle strength, but has a significant effect on improving upper limb endurance performance (especially on the non-dominant side).