Claudia Ammann1, Martin A Lindquist2, Pablo A Celnik3. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 707 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 707 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: pcelnik@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well known that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is capable of modulating corticomotor excitability. However, a source of growing concern has been the observed inter- and intra-individual variability of tDCS-responses. Recent studies have assessed whether individuals respond in a predictable manner across repeated sessions of anodal tDCS (atDCS). The findings of these investigations have been inconsistent, and their methods have some limitations (i.e. lack of sham condition or testing only one tDCS intensity). OBJECTIVE: To study inter- and intra-individual variability of atDCS effects at two different intensities on primary motor cortex (M1) excitability. METHODS:Twelve subjects participated in a crossover study testing 7-min atDCS over M1 in three separate conditions (2 mA, 1 mA, sham) each repeated three times separated by 48 h. Motor evoked potentials were recorded before and after stimulation (up to 30min). Time of testing was maintained consistent within participants. To estimate the reliability of tDCS effects across sessions, we calculated the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS:AtDCS at 2 mA, but not 1 mA, significantly increased cortical excitability at the group level in all sessions. The overall ICC revealed fair to high reliability of tDCS effects for multiple sessions. Given that the distribution of responses showed important variability in the sham condition, we established a Sham Variability-Based Threshold to classify responses and to track individual changes across sessions. Using this threshold an intra-individual consistent response pattern was then observed only for the 2 mA condition. CONCLUSION: 2 mA anodal tDCS results in consistent intra- and inter-individual increases of M1 excitability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is well known that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is capable of modulating corticomotor excitability. However, a source of growing concern has been the observed inter- and intra-individual variability of tDCS-responses. Recent studies have assessed whether individuals respond in a predictable manner across repeated sessions of anodal tDCS (atDCS). The findings of these investigations have been inconsistent, and their methods have some limitations (i.e. lack of sham condition or testing only one tDCS intensity). OBJECTIVE: To study inter- and intra-individual variability of atDCS effects at two different intensities on primary motor cortex (M1) excitability. METHODS: Twelve subjects participated in a crossover study testing 7-min atDCS over M1 in three separate conditions (2 mA, 1 mA, sham) each repeated three times separated by 48 h. Motor evoked potentials were recorded before and after stimulation (up to 30min). Time of testing was maintained consistent within participants. To estimate the reliability of tDCS effects across sessions, we calculated the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS:AtDCS at 2 mA, but not 1 mA, significantly increased cortical excitability at the group level in all sessions. The overall ICC revealed fair to high reliability of tDCS effects for multiple sessions. Given that the distribution of responses showed important variability in the sham condition, we established a Sham Variability-Based Threshold to classify responses and to track individual changes across sessions. Using this threshold an intra-individual consistent response pattern was then observed only for the 2 mA condition. CONCLUSION: 2 mA anodal tDCS results in consistent intra- and inter-individual increases of M1 excitability.
Authors: Janine Reis; Heidi M Schambra; Leonardo G Cohen; Ethan R Buch; Brita Fritsch; Eric Zarahn; Pablo A Celnik; John W Krakauer Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.205
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
Authors: Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Daniel P Janini; Yin-Liang Lin; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Patrick Chabra; Kevin L Kilgore; Mary Ann Richmond; Frederick S Frost; Ela B Plow Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Sarah Marchina; Jessica M Pisegna; Joseph M Massaro; Susan E Langmore; Courtney McVey; Jeffrey Wang; Sandeep Kumar Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Vishal Rawji; Matteo Ciocca; André Zacharia; David Soares; Dennis Truong; Marom Bikson; John Rothwell; Sven Bestmann Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 8.955