A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Introduction

Cognition impairments often occur after a traumatic brain injury and occur at higher rates in military members. Cognitive symptoms impair daily function, including balance and life quality, years after the TBI. Current treatments to regain cognitive function after TBI, including medications and cognitive rehabilitation, have shown limited effectiveness. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a low-cost, non-invasive brain stimulation intervention that improves cognitive function in healthy adults and people with neuropsychologic diagnoses beyond current interventions. Despite the available evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS in improving cognition generally, only two small TBI trials have been conducted based on the most recent systematic review of tDCS effectiveness for cognition following neurological impairment. We found no tDCS studies that addressed TBI-related balance impairments.

Methods

A scoping review using a peer-reviewed search of eight databases was completed in July 2022. Two assessors completed a multi-step review and completed data extraction on included studies using a priori items recommended in tDCS and TBI research guidelines.

Results

A total of 399 results were reviewed for inclusion and 12 met the criteria and had data extracted from them by two assessors using Google Forms. Consensus on combined data results included a third assessor when needed. No studies using tDCS for cognition-related balance were found.

Discussion

Guidelines and technology measures increase the identification of brain differences that alter tDCS effects on cognition. People with mild-severe and acute-chronic TBI tolerated and benefited from tDCS. TBI-related cognition is understudied, and systematic research that incorporates recommended data elements is needed to advance tDCS interventions to improve cognition after TBI weeks to years after injury.

A novel tDCS control condition using optimized anesthetic gel to block peripheral nerve input

Background

Recent studies indicate that some transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects may be caused by indirect stimulation of peripheral nerves in the scalp rather than the electric field in the brain. To address this, we developed a novel tDCS control condition in which peripheral input is blocked using topical anesthetics. We developed a compounded anesthetic gel containing benzocaine and lidocaine (BL10) that blocks peripheral input during tDCS.

Methods

In a blinded randomized cross-over study of 18 healthy volunteers (M/F), we compared the gel's efficacy to EMLA and an inert placebo gel. Subjects used a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate the stimulation sensation in the scalp produced by 10 s of 2 mA tDCS every 2 min during 1 h. In an additional in-vitro experiment, the effect of a DC current on gel resistivity and temperature was investigated.

Results

Both the BL10 and EMLA gel, lowered the stimulation sensations compared to the placebo gel. The BL10 gel showed a tendency to work faster than the EMLA gel with reported sensations for the BL10 gel being lower than for EMLA for the first 30 min. The DC current caused a drastic increase in gel resistivity for the EMLA gel, while it did not affect gel resistivity for the BL10 and placebo gel, nor did it affect gel temperature.

Conclusions

Topical anesthetics reduce stimulation sensations by blocking peripheral nerve input during tDCS. The BL10 gel tends to work faster and is more electrically stable than EMLA gel.

Clinical trial registration

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with name "Understanding the Neural Mechanisms Behind tDCS" and number NCT04577677.

Learned EEG-based brain self-regulation of motor-related oscillations during application of transcranial electric brain stimulation: feasibility and limitations

Objective: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improves motor learning and can affect emotional processing and attention. However, it is unclear whether learned electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-machine interface (BMI) control during tDCS is feasible, how application of transcranial electric currents during BMI control would interfere with feature-extraction of physiological brain signals and how it affects brain control performance. Here we tested this combination and evaluated stimulation-dependent artifacts across different EEG frequencies and stability of motor imagery-based BMI control.

Approach: Ten healthy volunteers were invited to two BMI-sessions, each comprising two 60-trial blocks. During the trials, learned desynchronization of mu-rhythms (8–15 Hz) associated with motor imagery (MI) recorded over C4 was translated into online cursor movements on a computer screen. During block 2, either sham (session A) or anodal tDCS (session B) was applied at 1 mA with the stimulation electrode placed 1 cm anterior of C4.

Main results: tDCS was associated with a significant signal power increase in the lower frequencies most evident in the signal spectrum of the EEG channel closest to the stimulation electrode. Stimulation-dependent signal power increase exhibited a decay of 12 dB per decade, leaving frequencies above 9 Hz unaffected. Analysis of BMI control performance did not indicate a difference between blocks and tDCS conditions.

Conclusion: Application of tDCS during learned EEG-based self-regulation of brain oscillations above 9 Hz is feasible and safe, and might improve applicability of BMI systems.