Investigation of the electric field components of tDCS via anisotropically conductive gyri-specific finite element head models

Review of tDCS Configurations for Stimulation of the Lower-Limb Area of Motor Cortex and Cerebellum

This article presents an exhaustive analysis of the works present in the literature pertaining to transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) applications. The aim of this work is to analyze the specific characteristics of lower-limb stimulation, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of these works and framing them with the current knowledge of tDCS. The ultimate goal of this work is to propose areas of improvement to create more effective stimulation therapies with less variability.

Standard Non-Personalized Electric Field Modeling of Twenty Typical tDCS Electrode Configurations via the Computational Finite Element Method: Contributions and Limitations of Two Different Approaches

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation procedure to modulate cortical excitability and related brain functions. tDCS can effectively alter multiple brain functions in healthy humans and is suggested as a therapeutic tool in several neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, variability of results is an important limitation of this method. This variability may be due to multiple factors, including age, head and brain anatomy (including skull, skin, CSF and meninges), cognitive reserve and baseline performance level, specific task demands, as well as comorbidities in clinical settings. Different electrode montages are a further source of variability between tDCS studies. A procedure to estimate the electric field generated by specific tDCS electrode configurations, which can be helpful to adapt stimulation protocols, is the computational finite element method. This approach is useful to provide a priori modeling of the current spread and electric field intensity that will be generated according to the implemented electrode montage. Here, we present standard, non-personalized model-based electric field simulations for motor, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex stimulation according to twenty typical tDCS electrode configurations using two different current flow modeling software packages. The resulting simulated maximum intensity of the electric field, focality, and current spread were similar, but not identical, between models. The advantages and limitations of both mathematical simulations of the electric field are presented and discussed systematically, including aspects that, at present, prevent more widespread application of respective simulation approaches in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation.

Traumatic axonal injury influences the cognitive effect of non-invasive brain stimulation

Non-invasive brain stimulation has been widely investigated as a potential treatment for a range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including brain injury. However, the behavioural effects of brain stimulation are variable, for reasons that are poorly understood. This is a particular challenge for traumatic brain injury, where patterns of damage and their clinical effects are heterogeneous. Here we test the hypothesis that the response to transcranial direct current stimulation following traumatic brain injury is dependent on white matter damage within the stimulated network. We used a novel simultaneous stimulation-MRI protocol applying anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation to 24 healthy control subjects and 35 patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury. Stimulation was applied to the right inferior frontal gyrus/anterior insula node of the salience network, which was targeted because our previous work had shown its importance to executive function. Stimulation was applied during performance of the Stop Signal Task, which assesses response inhibition, a key component of executive function. Structural MRI was used to assess the extent of brain injury, including diffusion MRI assessment of post-traumatic axonal injury. Functional MRI, which was simultaneously acquired to delivery of stimulation, assessed the effects of stimulation on cognitive network function. Anodal stimulation improved response inhibition in control participants, an effect that was not observed in the patient group. The extent of traumatic axonal injury within the salience network strongly influenced the behavioural response to stimulation. Increasing damage to the tract connecting the stimulated right inferior frontal gyrus/anterior insula to the rest of the salience network was associated with reduced beneficial effects of stimulation. In addition, anodal stimulation normalized default mode network activation in patients with poor response inhibition, suggesting that stimulation modulates communication between the networks involved in supporting cognitive control. These results demonstrate an important principle: that white matter structure of the connections within a stimulated brain network influences the behavioural response to stimulation. This suggests that a personalized approach to non-invasive brain stimulation is likely to be necessary, with structural integrity of the targeted brain networks an important criterion for patient selection and an individualized approach to the selection of stimulation parameters.

Cognitive enhancement with Salience Network electrical stimulation is influenced by network structural connectivity

The Salience Network (SN) and its interactions are important for cognitive control. We have previously shown that structural damage to the SN is associated with abnormal functional connectivity between the SN and Default Mode Network (DMN), abnormal DMN deactivation, and impaired response inhibition, which is an important aspect of cognitive control. This suggests that stimulating the SN might enhance cognitive control. Here, we tested whether non-invasive transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) could be used to modulate activity within the SN and enhance cognitive control. TDCS was applied to the right inferior frontal gyrus/anterior insula cortex during performance of the Stop Signal Task (SST) and concurrent functional (f)MRI. Anodal TDCS improved response inhibition. Furthermore, stratification of participants based on SN structural connectivity showed that it was an important influence on both behavioural and physiological responses to anodal TDCS. Participants with high fractional anisotropy within the SN showed improved SST performance and increased activation of the SN with anodal TDCS, whilst those with low fractional anisotropy within the SN did not. Cathodal stimulation of the SN produced activation of the right caudate, an effect which was not modulated by SN structural connectivity. Our results show that stimulation targeted to the SN can improve response inhibition, supporting the causal influence of this network on cognitive control and confirming it as a target to produce cognitive enhancement. Our results also highlight the importance of structural connectivity as a modulator of network to TDCS, which should guide the design and interpretation of future stimulation studies.

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

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.

Technical aspects of neurostimulation: Focus on equipment, electric field modeling, and stimulation protocols

Neuromodulation is a field of science, medicine, and bioengineering that encompasses implantable and non-implantable technologies for the purpose of improving quality of life and functioning of humans. Brain neuromodulation involves different neurostimulation techniques: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), which are being used both to study their effects on cognitive brain functions and to treat neuropsychiatric disorders. The mechanisms of action of neurostimulation remain incompletely understood. Insight into the technical basis of neurostimulation might be a first step towards a more profound understanding of these mechanisms, which might lead to improved clinical outcome and therapeutic potential. This review provides an overview of the technical basis of neurostimulation focusing on the equipment, the present understanding of induced electric fields, and the stimulation protocols. The review is written from a technical perspective aimed at supporting the use of neurostimulation in clinical practice.

Investigating the cortical regions involved in MEP modulation in tDCS

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used in several studies to evaluate cortical excitability changes induced by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex. Interpretation of these results, however, is hindered by the very different spatial distribution of the electric field (E-field) induced by the two techniques and by the different target neurons that they might act upon. In this study we used the finite element method to calculate the E-field distribution induced by TMS and tDCS in a realistically shaped model of a human head. A model of a commercially available figure-8 coil was placed over a position above the identified hand knob (HK) region. We also modeled two configurations of bipolar tDCS montages with one of the electrodes placed over the HK and a return electrode over the contralateral orbital region. The electrodes over the HK were either rectangular in shape, with an area of 35 cm² or cylindrical with an area of π cm² (1 cm radius). To compare the E-field distribution in TMS and the two tDCS models, average values of the E-field's magnitude as well as the polar and azimuthal angle were investigated in the HK region and premotor areas. The results show that both techniques induce fields with different magnitudes and directions in the HK: the field in tDCS is predominantly perpendicular to the cortical surface, contrary to what happens in TMS where the field is mostly parallel to it. In the premotor areas, the magnitude of the E-field induced in TMS was well below the accepted threshold for MEP generation, 100 V/m. In tDCS, the magnitude of the field in these areas was comparable to that induced at the HK with a significant component perpendicular to the cortical surface. These results indicate that tDCS and TMS target preferentially different neuronal structures at the HK. Besides, they show that premotor areas may play a role in the tDCS-induced after effects on motor cortex excitability.

The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies

There has been an explosion of research using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for investigating and modulating human cognitive and motor function in healthy populations. It has also been used in many studies seeking to improve deficits in disease populations. With the slew of studies reporting “promising results” for everything from motor recovery after stroke to boosting memory function, one could be easily seduced by the idea of tDCS being the next panacea for all neurological ills. However, huge variability exists in the reported effects of tDCS, with great variability in the effect sizes and even contradictory results reported. In this review, we consider the interindividual factors that may contribute to this variability. In particular, we discuss the importance of baseline neuronal state and features, anatomy, age and the inherent variability in the injured brain. We additionally consider how interindividual variability affects the results of motor-evoked potential (MEP) testing with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which, in turn, can lead to apparent variability in response to tDCS in motor studies.