| Literature DB >> 32232112 |
Bettina Habelt1, Mahnaz Arvaneh2, Nadine Bernhardt1, Ivan Minev2.
Abstract
Addictive disorders are a severe health concern. Conventional therapies have just moderate success and the probability of relapse after treatment remains high. Brain stimulation techniques, such as transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS), have been shown to be effective in reducing subjectively rated substance craving. However, there are few objective and measurable parameters that reflect neural mechanisms of addictive disorders and relapse. Key electrophysiological features that characterize substance related changes in neural processing are Event-Related Potentials (ERP). These high temporal resolution measurements of brain activity are able to identify neurocognitive correlates of addictive behaviours. Moreover, ERP have shown utility as biomarkers to predict treatment outcome and relapse probability. A future direction for the treatment of addiction might include neural interfaces able to detect addiction-related neurophysiological parameters and deploy neuromodulation adapted to the identified pathological features in a closed-loop fashion. Such systems may go beyond electrical recording and stimulation to employ sensing and neuromodulation in the pharmacological domain as well as advanced signal analysis and machine learning algorithms. In this review, we describe the state-of-the-art in the treatment of addictive disorders with electrical brain stimulation and its effect on addiction-related neurophysiological markers. We discuss advanced signal processing approaches and multi-modal neural interfaces as building blocks in future bioelectronics systems for treatment of addictive disorders.Entities:
Keywords: Addiction; Closed-loop systems; DBS; Deep brain stimulation; ERP; Event-related potentials; Flexible electronics; Multimodal neural interfaces; Neural activity; Neurotransmitters; Substance use disorders; Transcranial direct current stimulation; tDCS
Year: 2020 PMID: 32232112 PMCID: PMC7098236 DOI: 10.1186/s42234-020-0040-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioelectron Med ISSN: 2332-8886
Fig. 1Application of neuroprosthetic devices in SUD. Drug-related stimuli can induce craving and subsequent relapse in drug addicted individuals such as a glass of beer in alcoholics. The loss of inhibitory control leading to alcohol consumption is accompanied by abnormally decreased ERP amplitudes like for N2 and P3. Neuroprosthetic systems could identify and normalise these pathological features through different brain stimulation methods leading to improved behaviour control and decreased relapse risk
Summary of studies investigating the effects of brain stimulation on electrophysiological correlates of addiction
| Reference | Substance | Subject | Stimulation | Study design | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deep Brain Stimulation | |||||
| Kuhn et al. ( | Alcohol | human | Nacc | Flanker task | ERN↑ during 1 year of DBS |
| Ross et al. ( | Food | rat | 500 msec trains, 20/130 Hz, 250–400 μA, monopolar, biphasic into CeA | Self-administration of sucrose pellets | DBS vs. sham: decreased proportion of responsive neurons to reward-related food at both frequencies |
| Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation | |||||
| Conti and Nakamura-Palacios ( | Crack-cocaine | human | 20 min, 2 mA, 35 cm2, 1x left cathodal/right anodal vs. sham stim over DLPFC/ACC | Go/NoGo task with visual drug-related vs. neutral cues | tDCS vs. sham: N2↓ after drug-related images |
| Conti et al. ( | Crack-cocaine | human | 20 min, 2 mA, 35 cm2, 1x per day over 5 days, left cathodal/right anodal vs. sham stim over DLPFC | Go/NoGo task with visual drug-related vs. neutral cues | 1st day tDCS vs. sham: P3↑ after neutral, P3↓ after drug-related cues in DLPFC 5th day tDCS vs. sham: P3↑ after neutral and drug-related cues in DLPFC, P3↑ after drug-related cues vs. P3↓ after neutral cues in FPC, OFC, ACC |
| da Silva et al. ( | Alcohol | human | 20 min, 2 mA, 35 cm2, 1x per week over 5 weeks anodal vs. sham stim over left DLPFC | Go/NoGo task with visual drug-related vs. neutral cues | N2↑ sham & tDCS, neutral and drug-related cues P3↑ sham, neutral cues P3↓ sham & tDCS, drug-related cues Density of activation ↓ after tDCS vs. sham in FPC, OFC, ACC, DLPFC |
| den Uyl et al. ( | Alcohol | human | 15 min, 1 mA, 35 cm2, 1x per day over 3 days anodal over left DLPFC/cathodal over right supraorbital area vs. sham stim | Alcohol oddball task with visual drug-related vs. neutral cues | tDCS vs. sham: P3↓ after drug-related cues |
| Nakamura-Palacios et al. ( | Alcohol | human | 10 min, 1 mA, 35 cm2, 1x anodal over left DLPFC/cathodal over right supradeltoid area vs. sham stim | passive listening to auditory drug-related vs. neutral cues | tDCS vs. sham: P3↑ after drug-related cues |
| Nakamura-Palacios et al. ( | Alcohol Crack-Cocaine | human | 20 min (Crack-users) or 2 × 13 min (Alcoholics), 2 mA, 35 cm2, 1x per day over 5 days, left cathodal/right anodal vs. sham stim over DLPFC | Go/NoGo task with visual drug-related vs. neutral cues | Density of P3 activation ↑ after tDCS vs. sham after drug-related cues predominantly in vmPFC |
| Lapenta et al. ( | Food | human | 20 min, 2 mA, 35 cm2, 1x left cathodal/right anodal vs. sham stim over DLPFC | Go/NoGo task with visual food-related vs. neutral cues | tDCS vs. sham: N2↓, P3↑ in NoGo condition |