Blinding efficacy and adverse events following repeated transcranial alternating current, direct current, and random noise stimulation.
James G. SheffieldiD, Sumientra M. RampersadiD, Anna‐Katharine BremiD, Karen Laura MansfieldiD, Umut OrhaniD, Michael B. DillardiD, James A. McKannaiD, Franziska PlessowiD, Todd W. ThompsoniD, Emiliano SantarnecchiiD, Álvaro Pascual‐LeoneiD, Misha Pavel CiD, Santosh A. MathaniD, Roi Cohen KadoshiD
Abstract
As transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) protocols advance, assumptions underlying the technique need to be retested to ensure they still hold. Whilst the safety of stimulation has been demonstrated mainly for a small number of sessions, and small sample size, adverse events (AEs) following multiple sessions remain largely untested. Similarly, whilst blinding procedures are typically assumed to be effective, the effect of multiple stimulation sessions on the efficacy of blinding procedures also remains under question. This is especially relevant in multisite projects where small unintentional variations in protocol could lead to inter-site difference. We report AE and blinding data from 1,019 participants who received up to 11 semi-consecutive sessions of active or sham transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), direct current stimulation (tDCS), and random noise stimulation (tRNS), at 4 sites in the UK and US. We found that AEs were often best predicted by factors other than tES, such as testing site or session number. Results from the blinding analysis suggested that blinding was less effective for tDCS and tACS than tRNS. The occurrence of AEs did not appear to be linked to tES despite the use of smaller electrodes or repeated delivery. However, blinding efficacy was impacted in tES conditions with higher cutaneous sensation, highlighting a need for alternative stimulation blinding protocols. This may be increasingly necessary in studies wishing to deliver stimulation with higher intensities.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 33
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Field percentile
- top 11%
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Is the "end-of-study guess" a valid measure of sham blinding during transcranial direct current stimulation?
Christopher W. Turner, Catherine M. Jackson, Gemma Learmonth·European Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Oct 24, 2020
- The Time Course of Ineffective Sham Blinding During 1mA tDCS
Robert Greinacher, Larissa Buhôt, … Gemma Learmonth·European Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jun 22, 2019
- Vestibular involvement in transcranial electrical stimulation: body sway as a marker of unintended stimulation
Ilkka Laakso, Janita Nissi, Otto Kangasmaa·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Dec 22, 2024
- Mimicking and mitigating the cutaneous response to transcranial electrical stimulation using interferential and combinatorial techniques
B. Howell, C. C. McIntyre·bioRxiv·Aug 31, 2021
- Enhancing visual perceptual learning using transcranial electrical stimulation: transcranial alternating current stimulation outperforms both transcranial direct current and random noise stimulation
Qing He, Xinyi Zhu, Fang Fang·Journal of VisionPeer-reviewed·Dec 6, 2023
- Individual-specific effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on 40-Hz auditory steady-state responses
Aurimas Mockevičius, Xiaojuan Wang, … Inga Griškova-Bulanova·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2025