BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies have assessed the tolerability and comfort experienced while undertaking transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). OBJECTIVE: This study intended to assess tolerability and the level of comfort experienced in a large sample of participants undertaking tDCS for 30 min at 2 mA of current strength. Moreover, we assessed whether sham and active stimulation are indistinguishable. METHODS:One-hundred and forty-nine participants underwent 195 tDCS sessions. The delivery of stimulation was double-blind. Participants were asked: (i) to rate comfort levels using a visual analog scale; (ii) to report any symptom experienced during the period of tDCS stimulation; (iii) to indicate, at the end of the session, whether the tDCS stimulation was active or sham. RESULTS: No adverse effects occurred. However, comfort levels were significantly higher in the sham than in the active stimulation condition (primarily in Study 2). A comparable number of symptoms were experienced in the active and in the sham conditions. However, in the majority of symptoms reported, a greater proportion of participants complained in the active than in the sham stimulation condition. Ancillary analyses indicated that with smaller electrodes more symptoms were experienced. However, this occurred in a comparable way in both active and sham stimulations. Finally, participants could not reliably distinguish the type of stimulation received. CONCLUSIONS: The present study adds and complements the growing literature suggesting that tDCS is a well-tolerated and safe neurostimulation tool. Moreover, at least under the stimulation parameters used in the present study, neurostimulation can be successfully administered using a double-blind procedure without participants being able to reliably assess whether the stimulation received is either active or sham.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies have assessed the tolerability and comfort experienced while undertaking transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). OBJECTIVE: This study intended to assess tolerability and the level of comfort experienced in a large sample of participants undertaking tDCS for 30 min at 2 mA of current strength. Moreover, we assessed whether sham and active stimulation are indistinguishable. METHODS: One-hundred and forty-nine participants underwent 195 tDCS sessions. The delivery of stimulation was double-blind. Participants were asked: (i) to rate comfort levels using a visual analog scale; (ii) to report any symptom experienced during the period of tDCS stimulation; (iii) to indicate, at the end of the session, whether the tDCS stimulation was active or sham. RESULTS: No adverse effects occurred. However, comfort levels were significantly higher in the sham than in the active stimulation condition (primarily in Study 2). A comparable number of symptoms were experienced in the active and in the sham conditions. However, in the majority of symptoms reported, a greater proportion of participants complained in the active than in the sham stimulation condition. Ancillary analyses indicated that with smaller electrodes more symptoms were experienced. However, this occurred in a comparable way in both active and sham stimulations. Finally, participants could not reliably distinguish the type of stimulation received. CONCLUSIONS: The present study adds and complements the growing literature suggesting that tDCS is a well-tolerated and safe neurostimulation tool. Moreover, at least under the stimulation parameters used in the present study, neurostimulation can be successfully administered using a double-blind procedure without participants being able to reliably assess whether the stimulation received is either active or sham.
Authors: Kristina S Horne; Hannah L Filmer; Zoie E Nott; Ziarih Hawi; Kealan Pugsley; Jason B Mattingley; Paul E Dux Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: A J Woods; A Antal; M Bikson; P S Boggio; A R Brunoni; P Celnik; L G Cohen; F Fregni; C S Herrmann; E S Kappenman; H Knotkova; D Liebetanz; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; W Paulus; A Priori; D Reato; C Stagg; N Wenderoth; M A Nitsche Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-11-22 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Marom Bikson; Pnina Grossman; Chris Thomas; Adantchede Louis Zannou; Jimmy Jiang; Tatheer Adnan; Antonios P Mourdoukoutas; Greg Kronberg; Dennis Truong; Paulo Boggio; André R Brunoni; Leigh Charvet; Felipe Fregni; Brita Fritsch; Bernadette Gillick; Roy H Hamilton; Benjamin M Hampstead; Ryan Jankord; Adam Kirton; Helena Knotkova; David Liebetanz; Anli Liu; Colleen Loo; Michael A Nitsche; Janine Reis; Jessica D Richardson; Alexander Rotenberg; Peter E Turkeltaub; Adam J Woods Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 8.955