Ohm's law and tDCS over the centuries

Quasistatic approximation in neuromodulation

We define and explain the quasistatic approximation (QSA) as applied to field modeling for electrical and magnetic stimulation. Neuromodulation analysis pipelines include discrete stages, and QSA is applied specifically when calculating the electric and magnetic fields generated in tissues by a given stimulation dose. QSA simplifies the modeling equations to support tractable analysis, enhanced understanding, and computational efficiency. The application of QSA in neuromodulation is based on four underlying assumptions: (A1) no wave propagation or self-induction in tissue, (A2) linear tissue properties, (A3) purely resistive tissue, and (A4) non-dispersive tissue. As a consequence of these assumptions, each tissue is assigned a fixed conductivity, and the simplified equations (e.g. Laplace's equation) are solved for the spatial distribution of the field, which is separated from the field's temporal waveform. Recognizing that electrical tissue properties may be more complex, we explain how QSA can be embedded in parallel or iterative pipelines to model frequency dependence or nonlinearity of conductivity. We survey the history and validity of QSA across specific applications, such as microstimulation, deep brain stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. The precise definition and explanation of QSA in neuromodulation are essential for rigor when using QSA models or testing their limits.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Nicotine Use: Nursing Implications for Patient Outcomes

ABSTRACT

Tobacco use is a leading cause of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and preventable death in the United States. The brains of individuals with nicotine dependence are characterized by damaged mesolimbic pathways in the medial portion of the limbic and frontal lobes, creating positive reinforcing mechanisms. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targets this neuroadaptation to improve smokers' nicotine-related outcomes, such as craving and smoking behavior, by depolarizing or hyperpolarizing the neurons of the brain. Recent literature reported promising outcomes in smokers after tDCS treatment interventions. tDCS has great potential for clinical nursing research for tobacco control given its multiple methodological advantages and few disadvantages. Nurse researchers can consider individualized and home-based tDCS interventions for community-based tobacco control research and may need to consider objective outcome measures (e.g., cotinine in urine) and addiction-related cognitive variables (e.g., self-regulation). Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems also need to be considered as participants in tDCS interventions. Additional considerations for nursing research are discussed.

Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) aims to alter brain function non-invasively by applying current to electrodes on the scalp. Decades of research and technological advancement are associated with a growing diversity of tES methods and the associated nomenclature for describing these methods. Whether intended to produce a specific response so the brain can be studied or lead to a more enduring change in behavior (e.g. for treatment), the motivations for using tES have themselves influenced the evolution of nomenclature, leading to some scientific, clinical, and public confusion. This ambiguity arises from (i) the infinite parameter space available in designing tES methods of application and (ii) varied naming conventions based upon the intended effects and/or methods of application. Here, we compile a cohesive nomenclature for contemporary tES technologies that respects existing and historical norms, while incorporating insight and classifications based on state-of-the-art findings. We consolidate and clarify existing terminology conventions, but do not aim to create new nomenclature. The presented nomenclature aims to balance adopting broad definitions that encourage flexibility and innovation in research approaches, against classification specificity that minimizes ambiguity about protocols but can hinder progress. Constructive research around tES classification, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), should allow some variations in protocol but also distinguish from approaches that bear so little resemblance that their safety and efficacy should not be compared directly. The proposed framework includes terms in contemporary use across peer-reviewed publications, including relatively new nomenclature introduced in the past decade, such as transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), as well as terms with long historical use such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We also define commonly used terms-of-the-trade including electrode, lead, anode, and cathode, whose prior use, in varied contexts, can also be a source of confusion. This comprehensive clarification of nomenclature and associated preliminary proposals for standardized terminology can support the development of consensus on efficacy, safety, and regulatory standards.

Physics of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Devices and Their History

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) devices apply direct current through electrodes on the scalp with the intention to modulate brain function for experimental or clinical purposes. All tDCS devices include a current controlled stimulator, electrodes that include a disposable electrolyte, and headgear to position the electrodes on the scalp. Transcranial direct current stimulation dose can be defined by the size and position of electrodes and the duration and intensity of current applied across electrodes. Electrode design and preparation are important for reproducibility and tolerability. High-definition tDCS uses smaller electrodes that can be arranged in arrays to optimize brain current flow. When intended to be used at home, tDCS devices require specific device design considerations. Computational models of current flow have been validated and support optimization and hypothesis testing. Consensus on the safety and tolerability of tDCS is protocol specific, but medical-grade tDCS devices minimize risk.

Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Increases Bilateral Directed Brain Connectivity during Motor-Imagery Based Brain-Computer Interface Control

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to affect motor and cognitive task performance and learning when applied to brain areas involved in the task. Targeted stimulation has also been found to alter connectivity within the stimulated hemisphere during rest. However, the connectivity effect of the interaction of endogenous task specific activity and targeted stimulation is unclear. This study examined the aftereffects of concurrent anodal high-definition tDCS over the left sensorimotor cortex with motor network connectivity during a one-dimensional EEG based sensorimotor rhythm brain-computer interface (SMR-BCI) task. Directed connectivity following anodal tDCS illustrates altered connections bilaterally between frontal and parietal regions, and these alterations occur in a task specific manner; connections between similar cortical regions are altered differentially during left and right imagination trials. During right-hand imagination following anodal tDCS, there was an increase in outflow from the left premotor cortex (PMC) to multiple regions bilaterally in the motor network and increased inflow to the stimulated sensorimotor cortex from the ipsilateral PMC and contralateral sensorimotor cortex. During left-hand imagination following anodal tDCS, there was increased outflow from the stimulated sensorimotor cortex to regions across the motor network. Significant correlations between connectivity and the behavioral measures of total correct trials and time-to-hit (TTH) correct trials were also found, specifically that the input to the left PMC correlated with decreased right hand imagination performance and that flow from the ipsilateral posterior parietal cortex (PPC) to midline sensorimotor cortex correlated with improved performance for both right and left hand imagination. These results indicate that tDCS interacts with task-specific endogenous activity to alter directed connectivity during SMR-BCI. In order to predict and maximize the targeted effect of tDCS, the interaction of stimulation with the dynamics of endogenous activity needs to be examined comprehensively and understood.

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)

Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) seems likely to open a new era of the field of noninvasive electrical stimulation of the human brain by directly interfering with cortical rhythms. It is expected to synchronize (by one single resonance frequency) or desynchronize (e.g., by the application of several frequencies) cortical oscillations. If applied long enough it may cause neuroplastic effects. In the theta range it may improve cognition when applied in phase. Alpha rhythms could improve motor performance, whereas beta intrusion may deteriorate them. TACS with both alpha and beta frequencies has a high likelihood to induce retinal phosphenes. Gamma intrusion can possibly interfere with attention. Stimulation in the “ripple” range induces intensity dependent inhibition or excitation in the motor cortex (M1) most likely by entrainment of neuronal networks, whereas stimulation in the low kHz range induces excitation by neuronal membrane interference. TACS in the 200 kHz range may have a potential in oncology.