How does transcranial DC stimulation of the primary motor cortex alter regional neuronal activity in the human brain?

By N. Lang, Hartwig Roman Siebner, N. Ward, Lucy Lee, Michael A. Nitsche, Walter Paulus, John C. Rothwell, Roger N. Lemon, Richard S. J. Frackowiak. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2005

775 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor hand area (M1) can produce lasting polarity‐specific effects on corticospinal excitability and motor learning in humans. In 16 healthy volunteers, O positron emission tomography (PET) of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) at rest and during finger movements was used to map lasting changes in regional synaptic activity following 10 min of tDCS (± 1 mA). Bipolar tDCS was given through electrodes placed over the left M1 and right frontopolar cortex. Eight subjects received anodal or cathodal tDCS of the left M1, respectively. When compared to sham tDCS, anodal and cathodal tDCS induced widespread increases and decreases in rCBF in cortical and subcortical areas. These changes in rCBF were of the same magnitude as task‐related rCBF changes during finger movements and remained stable throughout the 50‐min period of PET scanning. Relative increases in rCBF after real tDCS compared to sham tDCS were found in the left M1, right frontal pole, right primary sensorimotor cortex and posterior brain regions irrespective of polarity. With the exception of some posterior and ventral areas, anodal tDCS increased rCBF in many cortical and subcortical regions compared to cathodal tDCS. Only the left dorsal premotor cortex demonstrated an increase in movement related activity after cathodal tDCS, however, modest compared with the relatively strong movement‐independent effects of tDCS. Otherwise, movement related activity was unaffected by tDCS. Our results indicate that tDCS is an effective means of provoking sustained and widespread changes in regional neuronal activity. The extensive spatial and temporal effects of tDCS need to be taken into account when tDCS is used to modify brain function.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d82beba8614c2b653b3d95767f353b616266138

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

Combining non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation with neuroimaging and electrophysiology: Current approaches and future perspectives (2016, neutral): “, 1997) • Anodal/cathodal TDCS of M1 ➔ rCBF H2(15)O (Lang et al., 2005) • Anodal/cathodal TDCS of M1 ➔ task-releated change in rCBF H2(15)O (Paquette et al.”
tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review (2011, background): “…regional cerebral blood flow activation, as measured by PET, was correlated with the AeCi patterns when tDCS was applied over primary motor areas (Lang et al. 2005); however, this polarity-specific effect as measured by MRI BOLD was not found for the supplementary motor area (SMA; Baudewig et…”
A sham‐controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury (2006, background): “, 1997, 1999), TMS (Strafella, 2004) and tDCS (Lang et al., 2005).”
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human regional cerebral blood flow (2011, positive): “Using tDCS in conjunction with positron emission tomography (PET), Lang and colleagues (Lang et al., 2005) found increased rCBF effects during a motor task after tDCS stimulation.”
Noninvasive human brain stimulation. (2007, methodology): “As a measure of rCBF, the utility of PET may be limited.”
Gyri –precise head model of transcranial DC stimulation: Improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad (2009, neutral): “Indeed, some imaging and physiological studies suggest diffuse brain modulation and clustering of regional cerebral blood flow/EF, independent of anatomic connections.(20,52) Separate imaging, TMS mapping studies and, clinical studies indicate some level”
Physiological and modeling evidence for focal transcranial electrical brain stimulation in humans: A basis for high-definition tDCS (2013, background): “, 2010) and imaging (Baudewig et al., 2001; Lang et al., 2005) studies of tDCS suggest that conventional tDCS electrode montages using large, damp sponge electrodes result in very diffuse brain current flow, with areas of clustering (hot spots), and the target area is ineffectively pervaded.”
Clinical Research with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and Future Directions (2011, positive): “This is seen in connectivity-driven alterations of distant cortical and subcortical areas.(42,43) Interestingly, tDCSmodulates not only single neuron activity and evoked neuronal activity, but also spontaneous neuronal oscillations.”
Comparing cortical plasticity induced by conventional and high-definition 4 × 1 ring tDCS: a neurophysiological study. (2013, neutral): “motor cortex electrode for motor cortex stimulation), as demonstrated in neuroimaging studies [7].”
A common polymorphism in the brain‐derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity and the response to rTMS (2008, result): “Nevertheless if the conclusion holds it would be consistent with the idea that TDCS and rTMS act on different neural circuits which are differentially responsive to the BDNF polymorphism (Liebetanz et al. 2002; Lang et al. 2005).”
Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017, background): “Neuroimaging studies with tDCS before (Baudewig et al. , 2001, Lang et al. , 2005, Stagg et al. , 2009) or during neuroimaging (Antal et al., 2011b, Hone-Blanchet et al. , 2015, Rae et al. , 2013, Stagg et al. , 2013) or combined with magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography (Kwon et al.…”