Literature DB >> 26350410

The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Electrode Size and Current Intensity on Motor Cortical Excitability: Evidence From Single and Repeated Sessions.

Kerrie-Anne Ho1, Janet L Taylor2, Taariq Chew1, Verònica Gálvez1, Angelo Alonzo1, Siwei Bai3, Socrates Dokos4, Colleen K Loo5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current density is considered an important factor in determining the outcomes of tDCS, and is determined by the current intensity and electrode size. Previous studies examining the effect of these parameters on motor cortical excitability with small sample sizes reported mixed results. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: This study examined the effect of current intensity (1 mA, 2 mA) and electrode size (16 cm(2), 35 cm(2)) on motor cortical excitability over single and repeated tDCS sessions.
METHODS: Data from seven studies in 89 healthy participants were pooled for analysis. Single-session data were analyzed using mixed effects models and repeated-session data were analyzed using mixed design analyses of variance. Computational modeling was used to examine the electric field generated.
RESULTS: The magnitude of increases in excitability after anodal tDCS was modest. For single-session tDCS, the 35 cm(2) electrodes produced greater increases in cortical excitability compared to the 16 cm(2) electrodes. There were no differences in the magnitude of cortical excitation produced by 1 mA and 2 mA tDCS. The repeated-sessions data also showed that there were greater increases in excitability with the 35 cm(2) electrodes. Further, repeated sessions of tDCS with the 35 cm(2) electrodes resulted in a cumulative increase in cortical excitability. Computational modeling predicted higher electric field at the motor hotspot for the 35 cm(2) electrodes.
CONCLUSIONS: 2 mA tDCS does not necessarily produce larger effects than 1 mA tDCS in healthy participants. Careful consideration should be given to the exact positioning, size and orientation of tDCS electrodes relative to cortical regions.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cortical excitability; Electrode size; Motor cortex; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26350410     DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2015.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  38 in total

1.  Transcranial direct current brain stimulation decreases impulsivity in ADHD.

Authors:  Cheyenne Allenby; Mary Falcone; Leah Bernardo; E Paul Wileyto; Anthony Rostain; J Russell Ramsay; Caryn Lerman; James Loughead
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 2.  Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.

Authors:  A Antal; I Alekseichuk; M Bikson; J Brockmöller; A R Brunoni; R Chen; L G Cohen; G Dowthwaite; J Ellrich; A Flöel; F Fregni; M S George; R Hamilton; J Haueisen; C S Herrmann; F C Hummel; J P Lefaucheur; D Liebetanz; C K Loo; C D McCaig; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; V Moliadze; M A Nitsche; R Nowak; F Padberg; A Pascual-Leone; W Poppendieck; A Priori; S Rossi; P M Rossini; J Rothwell; M A Rueger; G Ruffini; K Schellhorn; H R Siebner; Y Ugawa; A Wexler; U Ziemann; M Hallett; W Paulus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 3.  Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Greg Kronberg; William J Tyler; Andrea Antal; Abhishek Datta; Bernhard A Sabel; Michael A Nitsche; Colleen Loo; Dylan Edwards; Hamed Ekhtiari; Helena Knotkova; Adam J Woods; Benjamin M Hampstead; Bashar W Badran; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Response variability of different anodal transcranial direct current stimulation intensities across multiple sessions.

Authors:  Claudia Ammann; Martin A Lindquist; Pablo A Celnik
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 5.  Incomplete evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes.

Authors:  Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Paola Marangolo; Benjamin M Hampstead; Sven Bestmann; Elisabeth Galletta; Helena Knotkova; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 8.955

6.  Increased leg muscle fatigability during 2 mA and 4 mA transcranial direct current stimulation over the left motor cortex.

Authors:  Craig D Workman; John Kamholz; Thorsten Rudroff
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 7.  The effects of medication use in transcranial direct current stimulation: A brief review.

Authors:  Molly E McLaren; Nicole R Nissim; Adam J Woods
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 8.955

8.  Aberrant plasticity in musculoskeletal pain: a failure of homeostatic control?

Authors:  Tribikram Thapa; Thomas Graven-Nielsen; Siobhan M Schabrun
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation in older adults: the effect of stimulation type and duration on the induction of motor cortex plasticity.

Authors:  Rohan Puri; Mark R Hinder; Alison J Canty; Jeffery J Summers
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-23       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in ADHD: A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Protocol-induced Electrical Field Modeling Results.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Salehinejad; Vahid Nejati; Mohsen Mosayebi-Samani; Ali Mohammadi; Miles Wischnewski; Min-Fang Kuo; Alessio Avenanti; Carmelo M Vicario; Michael A Nitsche
Journal:  Neurosci Bull       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 5.203

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.