Efficacy of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation is Related to Sensitivity to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Overview

Journal Brain Stimul

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Neurology

Date 2015 Oct 24

PMID 26493498

Citations 39

Authors

Ludovica Labruna

Asif Jamil

Shane Fresnoza

Giorgi Batsikadze

Min-Fang Kuo

Benjamin Vanderschelden

Richard B Ivry

Michael A Nitsche

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has become an important non-invasive brain stimulation tool for basic human brain physiology and cognitive neuroscience, with potential applications in cognitive and motor rehabilitation. To date, tDCS studies have employed a fixed stimulation level, without considering the impact of individual anatomy and physiology on the efficacy of the stimulation. This approach contrasts with the standard procedure for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) where stimulation levels are usually tailored on an individual basis.

Objective/hypothesis: The present study tests whether the efficacy of tDCS-induced changes in corticospinal excitability varies as a function of individual differences in sensitivity to TMS.

Methods: We performed an archival review to examine the relationship between the TMS intensity required to induce 1 mV motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and the efficacy of (fixed-intensity) tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1). For the latter, we examined tDCS-induced changes in corticospinal excitability, operationalized by comparing MEPs before and after anodal or cathodal tDCS. For comparison, we performed a similar analysis on data sets in which MEPs had been obtained before and after paired associative stimulation (PAS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique in which the stimulation intensity is adjusted on an individual basis.

Results: MEPs were enhanced following anodal tDCS. This effect was larger in participants more sensitive to TMS as compared to those less sensitive to TMS, with sensitivity defined as the TMS intensity required to produce MEPs amplitudes of the size of 1 mV. While MEPs were attenuated following cathodal tDCS, the magnitude of this attenuation was not related to TMS sensitivity nor was there a relationship between TMS sensitivity and responsiveness to PAS.

Conclusion: Accounting for variation in individual sensitivity to non-invasive brain stimulation may enhance the utility of tDCS as a tool for understanding brain-behavior interactions and as a method for clinical interventions.

Citing Articles

Non-Dominant Hemisphere Excitability Is Unaffected during and after Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Dominant Hemisphere.

Wilkins E, Young R, Houston D, Kawana E, Lopez Mora E, Sunkara M Brain Sci. 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 39061434 PMC: 11274959. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14070694.

Probing Our Built-in Calculator: A Systematic Narrative Review of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Studies on Arithmetic Operation-Related Brain Areas.

Fresnoza S, Ischebeck A eNeuro. 2024; 11(4).

PMID: 38580452 PMC: 10999731. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0318-23.2024.

Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Applied over Multiple Days Does Not Enhance Motor Learning of a Complex Overhand Throwing Task in Young Adults.

Pantovic M, Lidstone D, de Albuquerque L, Wilkins E, Munoz I, Aynlender D Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(11).

PMID: 38002389 PMC: 10669324. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10111265.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex over Multiple Days Improves Motor Learning of a Complex Overhand Throwing Task.

Pantovic M, de Albuquerque L, Mastrantonio S, Pomerantz A, Wilkins E, Riley Z Brain Sci. 2023; 13(10).

PMID: 37891809 PMC: 10604977. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13101441.

The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Fatigue Resistance.

De Guzman K, Young R, Contini V, Clinton E, Hitchcock A, Riley Z Brain Sci. 2023; 13(8).

PMID: 37626581 PMC: 10452200. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13081225.

References

Horvath J, Carter O, Forte J . Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be). Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; 8:2. PMC: 3901383. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002. View

Kuo M, Paulus W, Nitsche M . Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases. Neuroimage. 2013; 85 Pt 3:948-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.117. View

Batsikadze G, Moliadze V, Paulus W, Kuo M, Nitsche M . Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J Physiol. 2013; 591(7):1987-2000. PMC: 3624864. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.249730. View

Reis J, Schambra H, Cohen L, Buch E, Fritsch B, Zarahn E . Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(5):1590-5. PMC: 2635787. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0805413106. View

Wolters A, Sandbrink F, Schlottmann A, Kunesch E, Stefan K, Cohen L . A temporally asymmetric Hebbian rule governing plasticity in the human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 89(5):2339-45. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00900.2002. View

Nitsche M, Paulus W . Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001; 57(10):1899-901. DOI: 10.1212/wnl.57.10.1899. View

Opitz A, Legon W, Rowlands A, Bickel W, Paulus W, Tyler W . Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Neuroimage. 2013; 81:253-264. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.067. View

Kim J, Kim D, Chang W, Kim Y, Kim K, Im C . Inconsistent outcomes of transcranial direct current stimulation may originate from anatomical differences among individuals: electric field simulation using individual MRI data. Neurosci Lett. 2014; 564:6-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.01.054. View

Boggio P, Rigonatti S, Ribeiro R, Myczkowski M, Nitsche M, Pascual-Leone A . A randomized, double-blind clinical trial on the efficacy of cortical direct current stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2007; 11(2):249-54. PMC: 3372849. DOI: 10.1017/S1461145707007833. View

10.

Price A, Hamilton R . A Re-evaluation of the Cognitive Effects From Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2015; 8(3):663-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2015.03.007. View

11.

Stefan K, Kunesch E, Benecke R, Cohen L, Classen J . Mechanisms of enhancement of human motor cortex excitability induced by interventional paired associative stimulation. J Physiol. 2002; 543(Pt 2):699-708. PMC: 2290505. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2002.023317. View

12.

Ziemann U, Ilic T, Iliac T, Pauli C, Meintzschel F, Ruge D . Learning modifies subsequent induction of long-term potentiation-like and long-term depression-like plasticity in human motor cortex. J Neurosci. 2004; 24(7):1666-72. PMC: 6730462. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5016-03.2004. View

13.

Dayan E, Censor N, Buch E, Sandrini M, Cohen L . Noninvasive brain stimulation: from physiology to network dynamics and back. Nat Neurosci. 2013; 16(7):838-44. PMC: 4876726. DOI: 10.1038/nn.3422. View

14.

Lopez-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Rio-Rodriguez D, Fernandez-Del-Olmo M . Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul. 2014; 7(3):372-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.02.004. View

15.

Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini P, Pascual-Leone A . Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(12):2008-2039. PMC: 3260536. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016. View

16.

Nitsche M, Bikson M, Bestmann S . On the Use of Meta-analysis in Neuromodulatory Non-invasive Brain Stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2015; 8(3):666-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2015.03.008. View

17.

Duque J, Murase N, Celnik P, Hummel F, Harris-Love M, Mazzocchio R . Intermanual Differences in movement-related interhemispheric inhibition. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007; 19(2):204-13. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.204. View

18.

Nitsche M, Fricke K, HENSCHKE U, Schlitterlau A, Liebetanz D, Lang N . Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol. 2003; 553(Pt 1):293-301. PMC: 2343495. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916. View

19.

Fresnoza S, Paulus W, Nitsche M, Kuo M . Nonlinear dose-dependent impact of D1 receptor activation on motor cortex plasticity in humans. J Neurosci. 2014; 34(7):2744-53. PMC: 6802752. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3655-13.2014. View

20.

Batsikadze G, Paulus W, Grundey J, Kuo M, Nitsche M . Effect of the Nicotinic α4β2-receptor Partial Agonist Varenicline on Non-invasive Brain Stimulation-Induced Neuroplasticity in the Human Motor Cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2014; 25(9):3249-59. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhu126. View