136
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There has been an explosion of research using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for investigating and modulating human cognitive and motor function in healthy populations. It has also been used in many studies seeking to improve deficits in disease populations. With the slew of studies reporting “promising results” for everything from motor recovery after stroke to boosting memory function, one could be easily seduced by the idea of tDCS being the next panacea for all neurological ills. However, huge variability exists in the reported effects of tDCS, with great variability in the effect sizes and even contradictory results reported. In this review, we consider the interindividual factors that may contribute to this variability. In particular, we discuss the importance of baseline neuronal state and features, anatomy, age and the inherent variability in the injured brain. We additionally consider how interindividual variability affects the results of motor-evoked potential (MEP) testing with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which, in turn, can lead to apparent variability in response to tDCS in motor studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references113

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation.

          Since the rediscovery of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) about 10 years ago, interest in tDCS has grown exponentially. A noninvasive stimulation technique that induces robust excitability changes within the stimulated cortex, tDCS is increasingly being used in proof-of-principle and stage IIa clinical trials in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. Alongside these clinical studies, detailed work has been performed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed effects. In this review, the authors bring together the results from these pharmacological, neurophysiological, and imaging studies to describe their current knowledge of the physiological effects of tDCS. In addition, the theoretical framework for how tDCS affects motor learning is proposed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Inverted-U-shaped dopamine actions on human working memory and cognitive control.

            Brain dopamine (DA) has long been implicated in cognitive control processes, including working memory. However, the precise role of DA in cognition is not well-understood, partly because there is large variability in the response to dopaminergic drugs both across different behaviors and across different individuals. We review evidence from a series of studies with experimental animals, healthy humans, and patients with Parkinson's disease, which highlight two important factors that contribute to this large variability. First, the existence of an optimum DA level for cognitive function implicates the need to take into account baseline levels of DA when isolating the effects of DA. Second, cognitive control is a multifactorial phenomenon, requiring a dynamic balance between cognitive stability and cognitive flexibility. These distinct components might implicate the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, respectively. Manipulating DA will thus have paradoxical consequences for distinct cognitive control processes, depending on distinct basal or optimal levels of DA in different brain regions. Copyright © 2011 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review.

              In vivo effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have attracted much attention nowadays as this area of research spreads to both the motor and cognitive domains. The common assumption is that the anode electrode causes an enhancement of cortical excitability during stimulation, which then lasts for a few minutes thereafter, while the cathode electrode generates the opposite effect, i.e., anodal-excitation and cathodal-inhibition effects (AeCi). Yet, this dual-polarity effect has not been observed in all tDCS studies. Here, we conducted a meta-analytical review aimed to investigate the homogeneity/heterogeneity of the effect sizes of the AeCi dichotomy in both motor and cognitive functions. The AeCi effect was found to occur quite commonly with motor investigations and rarely in cognitive studies. When the anode electrode is applied over a non-motor area, in most cases, it will cause an excitation as measured by a relevant cognitive or perceptual task; however, the cathode electrode rarely causes an inhibition. We found homogeneity in motor studies and heterogeneity in cognitive studies with the electrode's polarity serving as a moderator that can explain the source of heterogeneity in cognitive studies. The lack of inhibitory cathodal effects might reflect compensation processes as cognitive functions are typically supported by rich brain networks. Further insights as to the polarity and domain interaction are offered, including subdivision to different classes of cognitive functions according to their likelihood of being affected by stimulation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Cell Neurosci
                Front Cell Neurosci
                Front. Cell. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1662-5102
                12 May 2015
                2015
                : 9
                : 181
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Advanced Neuroimaging, Integrative Brain Imaging Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Tokyo, Japan
                [2] 2Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Restorative Neurosciences, Imperial College London London, UK
                [3] 3Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Tokyo Japan
                Author notes

                Edited by: Michael A. Nitsche, Georg-August-University, Germany

                Reviewed by: Marom Bikson, The City College of New York of The City University of New York, USA; Alkomiet Hasan, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

                *Correspondence: Takashi Hanakawa, Department of Advanced Neuroimaging, Integrative Brain Imaging Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, 4-1-1 Ogawahigashi, Kodaira, Tokyo 187-8551, Japan hanakawa@ 123456ncnp.go.jp

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and are co-first authors.

                Article
                10.3389/fncel.2015.00181
                4428123
                26029052
                ef44b435-9a6f-479a-9e3f-2446146d16a3
                Copyright © 2015 Li, Uehara and Hanakawa.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 29 March 2015
                : 25 April 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 148, Pages: 19, Words: 13780
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Review

                Neurosciences
                transcranial direct current stimulation,interindividual variability,transcranial magnetic stimulation,cognition,motor-evoked potential

                Comments

                Comment on this article