The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on corticospinal and cortico-cortical excitability and response variability: conventional versus high definition montages
Michael PellegriniiD, Maryam ZoghiiD, Shapour J. JaberzadehiD
Abstract
Response variability following transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) highlights need for exploring different tDCS electrode montages. This study compared corticospinal excitability (CSE), cortico-cortical excitability and intra-individual variability following conventional and HD anodal (a-tDCS) and cathodal (c-tDCS) tDCS. Fifteen healthy young males attended four sessions at least one-week apart: conventional a-tDCS, conventional c-tDCS, HD-a-tDCS, HD-c-tDCS. TDCS was administered (1mA, 10-minutes) over the primary motor cortex (M1), via 6x4cm active and 7x5cm return electrodes (conventional tDCS) and 4x1 ring-electrodes 3.5cm apart in ring formation around M1 (HD-tDCS). For CSE, twenty-five single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) peak-to-peak motor evoked potentials (MEP) were recorded at baseline, 0-minutes and 30-minutes post-tDCS. For cortico-cortical excitability, twenty-five paired-pulse MEPs with 3-millisecond (ms) inter-pulse interval (IPI) and twenty-five at 10ms assessed short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) respectively. MEP standardised z-values standard deviations represented intra-individual variability. No significant differences were reported in CSE between conventional and HD a-tDCS, but significant differences between conventional and HD c-tDCS 0-minutes post-tDCS. Intra-individual variability was significantly reduced in conventional tDCS compared to HD-tDCS for a-tDCS (0-minutes) and c-tDCS (30-minutes). No significant changes were reported in SICI and ICF. These novel findings highlight current technical issues with HD-tDCS, suggesting future tDCS studies should utilise conventional tDCS to minimise intra-individual variability, ensuring tDCS after-effects are true changes in CSE and cortico-cortical excitability.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 29
- FWCI
- 1.64
- Field percentile
- top 17%
- Organism
- Assay
- 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
- Electric field dependent effects of motor cortical TDCS
Ilkka Laakso, Marko Mikkonen, … Satoshi Tanaka·bioRxiv·May 21, 2018
- State-dependent effectiveness of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on cortical excitability
Alessandra Vergallito, Erica Varoli, … Leonor J. Romero Lauro·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Jun 20, 2023
- Genetic polymorphisms do not predict inter-individual variability to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex
Michael Pellegrini, Maryam Zoghi, Shapour J. Jaberzadeh·Brain ConnectivityPeer-reviewed·Nov 17, 2020
- Differences in high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor hotspot versus the premotor cortex on motor network excitability
Stéphanie Lefebvre, Kay Jann, … Sook‐Lei Liew·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Nov 26, 2019
- tDCS changes in motor excitability are specific to orientation of current flow
Vishal Rawji, Matteo Ciocca, … Sven Bestmann·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Nov 7, 2017
- Dose-controlled tDCS reduces electric field intensity variability at a cortical target site
Carys Evans, Clarissa Bachmann, … Sven Bestmann·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Oct 7, 2019