OBJECTIVE: Explore the feasibility, tolerability, and early efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a therapeutic intervention for youth with cognitive persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). HYPOTHESIS: tDCS improves performance on a dual task working memory (WM) paradigm in youth with cognitive PPCS. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve youth experiencing cognitive PPCS. DESIGN: A quasi-randomized pilot trial was used to explore the tolerability of, and performance differences on, a dual N-Back WM task paired with active or sham tDCS over 3 sessions. MEASURES: Accuracy and reaction time on WM task and self-report of tDCS tolerability. RESULTS: Trends toward increases in accuracy from Day 1 to 3 seen in both groups. Active tDCS group performed better than sham on Day 2 in N-Back level N2 (p = .019), and marginally better than the sham group on Day 3 in level N3 (p = .26). Participants reported tDCS as tolerable; compared to the active tDCS group, the sham group reported more "considerable" (p = .078) and "strong" symptoms (p = .097). CONCLUSION: tDCS is a promising tool for enhancing WM performance and is a feasible and tolerable adjunct to behavioral interventions in youth with cognitive PPCS. A clinical trial to demonstrate efficacy is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Explore the feasibility, tolerability, and early efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a therapeutic intervention for youth with cognitive persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). HYPOTHESIS: tDCS improves performance on a dual task working memory (WM) paradigm in youth with cognitive PPCS. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve youth experiencing cognitive PPCS. DESIGN: A quasi-randomized pilot trial was used to explore the tolerability of, and performance differences on, a dual N-Back WM task paired with active or sham tDCS over 3 sessions. MEASURES: Accuracy and reaction time on WM task and self-report of tDCS tolerability. RESULTS: Trends toward increases in accuracy from Day 1 to 3 seen in both groups. Active tDCS group performed better than sham on Day 2 in N-Back level N2 (p = .019), and marginally better than the sham group on Day 3 in level N3 (p = .26). Participants reported tDCS as tolerable; compared to the active tDCS group, the sham group reported more "considerable" (p = .078) and "strong" symptoms (p = .097). CONCLUSION: tDCS is a promising tool for enhancing WM performance and is a feasible and tolerable adjunct to behavioral interventions in youth with cognitive PPCS. A clinical trial to demonstrate efficacy is warranted.