Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals

By Meenakshi B. Iyer, U. Mattu, Jordan Henry Grafman, M. Lomarev, Susumu Sato, Eric M. Wassermann. Neurology, 2005

716 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1f6ec2a7ae1c173fa4b39cb61e13789d8f47ced9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Neurology

Citations in the corpus

Dissociating the roles of the cerebellum and motor cortex during adaptive learning: the motor cortex retains what the cerebellum learns. (2011, methodology): “Anodal stimulation was set at 2 mA (Iyer et al. 2005; Ferrucci et al. 2008; Galea et al. 2009) and delivered using a Phoresor II Auto (Model No.”
A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools (2015, methodology): “Thus, if no reference study exists for a specific experimental protocol, titration of stimulation parameters is recommended (Boggio et al., 2006; Iyer et al., 2005a; Cuypers et al., 2013).”
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory in patients with Parkinson's disease (2006, background): “08 mA cm) improves verbal fluency significantly [43].”
Transcranial direct current stimulation: A computer-based human model study (2007, methodology): “, 2004a; Nitsche and Paulus, 2000, 2001) and 5×5 cm(2) electrodes (Hummel et al., 2005; Iyer et al., 2005).”
A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. (2011, background): “In fact, some animal (Agnew &McCreery, 1987; Akimova & Novikova, 1978 ; Liebetanz et al. 2009) and clinical (Iyer et al. 2005 ; Nitsche et al. 2004; Poreisz et al. 2007 ; Tadini et al. 2010) studies addressed this issue; however, the former is not appropriate to test subjective effects whereas most…”
A sham‐controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury (2006, methodology): “Furthermore, recent research has demonstrated that tDCS can enhance some aspects of cognition (Nitsche et al., 2003b; Fregni et al., 2005b; Iyer et al., 2005) and promote the recovery of motor deficits in stroke patients (Fregni et al.”
Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017, methodology): “In general, human studies that evaluate parameters of neuronal damage, such as neuron specific enolase (NSE), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Nitsche et al. , 2004), electroencephalography (EEG), and neuropsychological tests (Iyer et al. , 2005, Tadini et al. , 2011) support the safety of tDCS.”
How does transcranial DC stimulation of the primary motor cortex alter regional neuronal activity in the human brain? (2005, background): “The rationale behind this sham procedure was to mimic the transient skin sensation at the beginning of real tDCS without producing any conditioning effects on the brain (Lang et al., 2004b; Siebner et al., 2004; Hummel et al., 2005; Iyer et al., 2005).”
Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. (2006, background): “Non-invasive brain polarization through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) influences cognitive functions in healthy volunteers (Antal et al., 2004; Fregni et al., 2005a; Iyer et al., 2005; Nitsche et al., 2003a) and”
tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases (2014, neutral): “…of 1 mA) and sham tDCS elicit comparably minimal discomfort and duration of sensations in the absence of differences in attention or fatigue, and can thus not be distinguished from sham by study participants nor investigators (Gandiga et al., 2006; Iyer et al., 2005; Nitsche et al., 2005).”
Partially non‐linear stimulation intensity‐dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans (2013, methodology): “…therefore administered 2 mA cathodal and anodal tDCS for 20 min to the primary motor cortex of healthy subjects, which is a frequently used stimulation protocol in cognitive and clinical studies (Iyer et al. 2005; Fregni et al. 2006b; Ferrucci et al. 2009; Brunoni et al. 2011; Ladeira et al. 2011).”
Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008 (2008, background): “These parameters do not (1) cause heating effects under the electrode(13); (2) elevate serum neurone-specific enolase level,(14,15) a sensitive marker of neuronal damage(48); and (3) result in changes of diffusion weighted or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), EEG activity, or cogni”
tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review (2011, background): “Others have reported a significant Ae effect only (Boggio et al. 2010a; Cerruti and Schlaug 2008; Chi et al. 2010; Floel et al. 2008; Fregni et al. 2005; Iyer et al. 2005; Kincses et al. 2004; Kraft et al. 2010; and Sparing et al. 2008).”
Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. (2014, methodology): “We used an intensity of 2 mA, which is higher than that used in most early TDCS studies [1e3,7,8,26], because it seems to be becoming a “standard” intensity in the growing literature of TDCS effects on behavioral and cognitive function and even in clinical settings [1,18,20,27,28].”