Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain stimulation

Cortical excitability changes induced by tDCS and revealed by TMS, are increasingly being used as an index of neuronal plasticity in the human cortex. The aim of this paper is to summarize the partially adverse effects of 567 tDCS sessions over motor and non-motor cortical areas (occipital, temporal, parietal) from the last 2 years, on work performed in our laboratories. One-hundred and two of our subjects who participated in our tDCS studies completed a questionnaire. The questionnaire contained rating scales regarding the presence and severity of headache, difficulties in concentrating, acute mood changes, visual perceptual changes and any discomforting sensation like pain, tingling, itching or burning under the electrodes, during and after tDCS. Participants were healthy subjects (75.5%), migraine patients (8.8%), post-stroke patients (5.9%) and tinnitus patients (9.8%). During tDCS a mild tingling sensation was the most common reported adverse effect (70.6%), moderate fatigue was felt by 35.3% of the subjects, whereas a light itching sensation under the stimulation electrodes occurred in 30.4% of cases. After tDCS headache (11.8%), nausea (2.9%) and insomnia (0.98%) were reported, but fairly infrequently. In addition, the incidence of the itching sensation (p=0.02) and the intensity of tingling sensation (p=0.02) were significantly higher during tDCS in the group of the healthy subjects, in comparison to patients; whereas the occurrence of headache was significantly higher in the patient group (p=0.03) after the stimulation. Our results suggest that tDCS applied to motor and non-motor areas according to the present tDCS safety guidelines, is associated with relatively minor adverse effects in healthy humans and patients with varying neurological disorders.

Brain rhythms regulate information processing in different states to enable learning and memory formation. The <1 Hz sleep slow oscillation hallmarks slow-wave sleep and is critical to memory consolidation. Here we show in sleeping humans that auditory stimulation in phase with the ongoing rhythmic occurrence of slow oscillation up states profoundly enhances the slow oscillation rhythm, phase-coupled spindle activity, and, consequently, the consolidation of declarative memory. Stimulation out of phase with the ongoing slow oscillation rhythm remained ineffective. Closed-loop in-phase stimulation provides a straight-forward tool to enhance sleep rhythms and their functional efficacy. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Responses to a number of different plasticity-inducing brain stimulation protocols are highly variable. However there is little data available on the variability of response to transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS). We tested the effects of TDCS over the motor cortex on corticospinal excitability. We also examined whether an individual's response could be predicted from measurements of onset latency of motor evoked potential (MEP) following stimulation with different orientations of monophasic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Fifty-three healthy subjects participated in a crossover-design. Baseline latency measurements with different coil orientations and MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle prior to the application of 10 min of 2 mA TDCS (0.057 mA/cm2). Thirty MEPs were measured every 5 min for up to half an hour after the intervention to assess after-effects on corticospinal excitability. Anodal TDCS at 2 mA facilitated MEPs whereas there was no significant effect of 2 mA cathodal TDCS. A two-step cluster analysis suggested that approximately 50% individuals had only a minor, or no response to TDCS whereas the remainder had a facilitatory effect to both forms of stimulation. There was a significant correlation between the latency difference of MEPs (anterior-posterior stimulation minus latero-medial stimulation) and the response to anodal, but not cathodal TDCS. The large variability in response to these TDCS protocols is in line with similar studies using other forms of non-invasive brain stimulation. The effects highlight the need to develop more robust protocols, and understand the individual factors that determine responsiveness. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.