BACKGROUND: Higher tDCS current may putatively enhance efficacy, with tolerability the perceived limiting factor. OBJECTIVE: We designed and validated electrodes and an adaptive controller to provide tDCS up to 4 mA, while managing tolerability. The adaptive 4 mA controller included incremental ramp up, impedance-based current limits, and a Relax-mode where current is transiently decreased. Relax-mode was automatically activated by self-report VAS-pain score >5 and in some conditions by a Relax-button available to participants. METHODS: In a parallel-group participant-blind design with 50 healthy subjects, we used specialized electrodes to administer 3 daily session of tDCS for 11 min, with a lexical decision task as a distractor, in 5 study conditions: adaptive 4 mA, adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button, adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button, 2 mA, and sham. A tablet-based stimulator with a participant interface regularly queried VAS pain score and also limited current based on impedance and tolerability. An Abort-button provided in all conditions stopped stimulation. In the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button conditions, participants could trigger a Relax-mode ad libitum, in the latter case with incrementally longer current reductions. Primary outcome was the average current delivered during each session, VAS pain score, and adverse event questionnaires. Current delivered was analyzed either excluding or including dropouts who activated Abort (scored as 0 current). RESULTS: There were two dropouts each in the adaptive 4 mA and sham conditions. Resistance based current attenuation was rarely activated, with few automatic VAS pain score triggered relax-modes. In conditions with Relax-button option, there were significant activations often irrespective of VAS pain score. Including dropouts, current across conditions were significantly different from each other with maximum current delivered during adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button. Excluding dropouts, maximum current was delivered with adaptive 4 mA. VAS pain score and adverse events for the sham was only significantly lower than the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button. There was no difference in VAS pain score or adverse events between 2 mA and adaptive 4 mA. CONCLUSIONS: Provided specific electrodes and controllers, adaptive 4 mA tDCS is tolerated and effectively blinded, with acceptability likely higher in a clinical population and absence of regular querying. Indeed, presenting participants with overt controls increases rumination on sensation.
BACKGROUND: Higher tDCS current may putatively enhance efficacy, with tolerability the perceived limiting factor. OBJECTIVE: We designed and validated electrodes and an adaptive controller to provide tDCS up to 4 mA, while managing tolerability. The adaptive 4 mA controller included incremental ramp up, impedance-based current limits, and a Relax-mode where current is transiently decreased. Relax-mode was automatically activated by self-report VAS-pain score >5 and in some conditions by a Relax-button available to participants. METHODS: In a parallel-group participant-blind design with 50 healthy subjects, we used specialized electrodes to administer 3 daily session of tDCS for 11 min, with a lexical decision task as a distractor, in 5 study conditions: adaptive 4 mA, adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button, adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button, 2 mA, and sham. A tablet-based stimulator with a participant interface regularly queried VAS pain score and also limited current based on impedance and tolerability. An Abort-button provided in all conditions stopped stimulation. In the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button conditions, participants could trigger a Relax-mode ad libitum, in the latter case with incrementally longer current reductions. Primary outcome was the average current delivered during each session, VAS pain score, and adverse event questionnaires. Current delivered was analyzed either excluding or including dropouts who activated Abort (scored as 0 current). RESULTS: There were two dropouts each in the adaptive 4 mA and sham conditions. Resistance based current attenuation was rarely activated, with few automatic VAS pain score triggered relax-modes. In conditions with Relax-button option, there were significant activations often irrespective of VAS pain score. Including dropouts, current across conditions were significantly different from each other with maximum current delivered during adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button. Excluding dropouts, maximum current was delivered with adaptive 4 mA. VAS pain score and adverse events for the sham was only significantly lower than the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button. There was no difference in VAS pain score or adverse events between 2 mA and adaptive 4 mA. CONCLUSIONS: Provided specific electrodes and controllers, adaptive 4 mA tDCS is tolerated and effectively blinded, with acceptability likely higher in a clinical population and absence of regular querying. Indeed, presenting participants with overt controls increases rumination on sensation.
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
Authors: Zsolt Turi; Gábor Csifcsák; Nya Mehnwolo Boayue; Per Aslaksen; Andrea Antal; Walter Paulus; Josephine Groot; Guy E Hawkins; Birte Forstmann; Alexander Opitz; Axel Thielscher; Matthias Mittner Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.386
Authors: Luana V M Aparício; Fabiana Guarienti; Lais Boralli Razza; André F Carvalho; Felipe Fregni; André Russowsky Brunoni Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Adriano H Moffa; André R Brunoni; Felipe Fregni; Ulrich Palm; Frank Padberg; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Djamila Bennabi; Emmanuel Haffen; Angelo Alonzo; Colleen K Loo Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Pratik Y Chhatbar; Rong Chen; Rachael Deardorff; Blair Dellenbach; Steven A Kautz; Mark S George; Wuwei Feng Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 8.955
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: 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
Authors: Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Pedro Schestatsky; Marom Bikson; André R Brunoni; Ada Pellegrinelli; Fernanda X Piovesan; Mariana M S A Santos; Renata B Menezes; Felipe Fregni Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Aurore Thibaut; Vivian L Shie; Colleen M Ryan; Ross Zafonte; Emily A Ohrtman; Jeffrey C Schneider; Felipe Fregni Journal: Burns Date: 2020-06-20 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: Carlos A Sánchez-León; Isabel Cordones; Claudia Ammann; José M Ausín; María A Gómez-Climent; Alejandro Carretero-Guillén; Guillermo Sánchez-Garrido Campos; Agnès Gruart; José M Delgado-García; Guy Cheron; Javier F Medina; Javier Márquez-Ruiz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Solène Pedron; Stéphanie Dumontoy; Maria Del Carmen González-Marín; Fabien Coune; Andries Van Schuerbeek; Emmanuel Haffen; Mickael Naassila; Vincent Van Waes Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 4.379