Explore the vast range of titles available.

Interest for neuromodulation, and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) in particular, is growing. It concerns patients rehabilitation, but also healthy people who want or need to improve their cognitive and learning abilities. However, there is no consensus yet regarding the efficacy of tRNS on learning and performing a complex task. In particular, the most effective electrode montage is yet to be determined. Here, we examined the effect of two different tRNS montages on learning rate, short- and long-term performance in a video game (Space Fortress) that engages multiple cognitive abilities. Sixty-one participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (sham vs. simple-definition tRNS vs. high-definition tRNS) in a double-blind protocol. Their performance on the Space Fortress task was monitored during a 15-day experiment with baseline (day 1), stimulation (day 2 to 4), short- (day 5) and long-term (day 15) evaluations. Our results show that the high-definition tRNS group improved more on the long term than simple-definition tRNS group, tended to learn faster and had better performance retention compared to both simple-definition tRNS and sham groups. This study is the first to report that high-definition tRNS is more effective than conventional simple-definition tRNS to enhance performance in a complex task.

Contrast sensitivity for a Gabor signal is affected by collinear high-contrast Gabor flankers. The flankers reduce (inhibitory effect) or increase (facilitatory effect) sensitivity, at short (2λ) and intermediate (6λ) target-to-flanker separation respectively. We investigated whether these inhibitory/facilitatory sensitivity effects are modulated by transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) applied to the occipital and frontal cortex of human observers during task performance. Signal detection theory was used to measure sensitivity ( d ’) and the Criterion (C) in a contrast detection task, performed with sham or tRNS applied over the occipital or the frontal cortex. After occipital stimulation results show a tRNS-dependent increased sensitivity for the single Gabor signal of low but not high contrast. Moreover, results suggest a dissociation of the tRNS effect when the Gabor signal is presented with the flankers, consisting in a general increased sensitivity at 2λ where the flankers had an inhibitory effect (reduction of inhibition) and a decreased sensitivity at 6λ where the flankers had a facilitatory effect on the Gabor signal (reduction of facilitation). After a frontal stimulation, no specific effect of the tRNS was found. We account for these complex interactions between tRNS and flankers by assuming that tRNS not only enhances feedforward input from the Gabor signal to the cortex, but also enhances the excitatory or inhibitory lateral intracortical input from the flankers. The boosted lateral input depends on the excitation-inhibition (E/I) ratio, namely when the lateral input is weak, it is boosted by tRNS with consequent modification of the contrast-dependent E/I ratio.

Background: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) conducted a revision of the 2009 guidelines by updating the evidence and recommendations. The scope of the 2016 guidelines remains the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, with a target audience of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. Methods: Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. “Neurostimulation Treatments” is the fourth of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. Results: Evidence-informed responses were developed for 31 questions for 6 neurostimulation modalities: 1) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), 2) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), 3) electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), 4) magnetic seizure therapy (MST), 5) vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and 6) deep brain stimulation (DBS). Most of the neurostimulation treatments have been investigated in patients with varying degrees of treatment resistance. Conclusions: There is increasing evidence for efficacy, tolerability, and safety of neurostimulation treatments. rTMS is now a first-line recommendation for patients with MDD who have failed at least 1 antidepressant. ECT remains a second-line treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression, although in some situations, it may be considered first line. Third-line recommendations include tDCS and VNS. MST and DBS are still considered investigational treatments.

Cognition is commonly affected in brain disorders. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may have procognitive effects, with high tolerability. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in improving cognition, in schizophrenia, depression, dementia, Parkinson's disease, stroke, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis. A PRISMA systematic search was conducted for randomized controlled trials. Hedges' g was used to quantify effect sizes (ES) for changes in cognition after TMS/tDCS v. sham. As different cognitive functions may have unequal susceptibility to TMS/tDCS, we separately evaluated the effects on: attention/vigilance, working memory, executive functioning, processing speed, verbal fluency, verbal learning, and social cognition. We included 82 studies (n = 2784). For working memory, both TMS (ES = 0.17, p = 0.015) and tDCS (ES = 0.17, p = 0.021) showed small but significant effects. Age positively moderated the effect of TMS. TDCS was superior to sham for attention/vigilance (ES = 0.20, p = 0.020). These significant effects did not differ across the type of brain disorder. Results were not significant for the other five cognitive domains. Our results revealed that both TMS and tDCS elicit a small trans-diagnostic effect on working memory, tDCS also improved attention/vigilance across diagnoses. Effects on the other domains were not significant. Observed ES were small, yet even slight cognitive improvements may facilitate daily functioning. While NIBS can be a well-tolerated treatment, its effects appear domain specific and should be applied only for realistic indications (i.e. to induce a small improvement in working memory or attention).

Uncertainty surrounding ohmic tissue conductivity impedes accurate calculation of the electric fields generated by non-invasive brain stimulation. We present an efficient and generic technique for uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, which quantifies the reliability of field estimates and identifies the most influential parameters. For this purpose, we employ a non-intrusive generalized polynomial chaos expansion to compactly approximate the multidimensional dependency of the field on the conductivities. We demonstrate that the proposed pipeline yields detailed insight into the uncertainty of field estimates for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), identifies the most relevant tissue conductivities, and highlights characteristic differences between stimulation methods. Specifically, we test the influence of conductivity variations on (i) the magnitude of the electric field generated at each gray matter location, (ii) its normal component relative to the cortical sheet, (iii) its overall magnitude (indexed by the 98th percentile), and (iv) its overall spatial distribution. We show that TMS fields are generally less affected by conductivity variations than tDCS fields. For both TMS and tDCS, conductivity uncertainty causes much higher uncertainty in the magnitude as compared to the direction and overall spatial distribution of the electric field. Whereas the TMS fields were predominantly influenced by gray and white matter conductivity, the tDCS fields were additionally dependent on skull and scalp conductivities. Comprehensive uncertainty analyses of complex systems achieved by the proposed technique are not possible with classical methods, such as Monte Carlo sampling, without extreme computational effort. In addition, our method has the advantages of directly yielding interpretable and intuitive output metrics and of being easily adaptable to new problems.

While pharmacological, behavioral and psychosocial treatments are available for substance use disorders (SUDs), they are not always effective or well-tolerated. Neuromodulation (NM) methods, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) may address SUDs by targeting addiction neurocircuitry. We evaluated the efficacy of NM to improve behavioral outcomes in SUDs. A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and PubMed databases and a list of search terms for four key concepts (SUD, rTMS, tDCS, DBS) was applied. Ninety-four studies were identified that examined the effects of rTMS, tDCS, and DBS on substance use outcomes (e.g., craving, consumption, and relapse) amongst individuals with SUDs including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, stimulants, and opioids. Meta-analyses were performed for alcohol and tobacco studies using rTMS and tDCS. We found that rTMS reduced substance use and craving, as indicated by medium to large effect sizes (Hedge’s g  > 0.5). Results were most encouraging when multiple stimulation sessions were applied, and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was targeted. tDCS also produced medium effect sizes for drug use and craving, though they were highly variable and less robust than rTMS; right anodal DLPFC stimulation appeared to be most efficacious. DBS studies were typically small, uncontrolled studies, but showed promise in reducing misuse of multiple substances. NM may be promising for the treatment of SUDs. Future studies should determine underlying neural mechanisms of NM, and further evaluate extended treatment durations, accelerated administration protocols and long-term outcomes with biochemical verification of substance use.

Late-life depression (LLD) is a growing worldwide problem due to demographic changes, with limited treatment options due to high rates of pharmacotherapy adverse effects, accessibility of psychotherapy, and tolerability of electroconvulsive therapy. Novel neuromodulation techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), may overcome these limitations. The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy, tolerability, and cognitive effects of high-dose deep rTMS in LLD. In this study we randomized older adults between 60 and 85 years old with major depressive disorder (MDD) to sham or active deep rTMS (H1 coil, 6012 pulses, 18 Hz, 120% of resting motor threshold) delivered over the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex 5 days per week over 4 weeks. Our primary outcome was remission of depression in an intention-to-treat analysis. We also assessed change in cognitive functioning with rTMS treatment and tolerability based on adverse effects. Fifty-two participants were randomized to active (n = 25) or sham H1 coil (n = 27). Remission rate was significantly higher with active than sham rTMS (40.0% vs 14.8%) with a number needed to treat of 4.0 (95% CI: 2.1–56.5). There was no change on any measure of executive function and no serious adverse events. Adverse effect profiles were similar between active and sham rTMS, except for reports of pain being significantly more common in the active condition (16.0% vs 0%). High-dose deep rTMS appears to be safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in the treatment of LLD.

The non-invasive delivery of electric currents through the scalp (transcranial electrical stimulation) is a popular tool for neuromodulation, mostly due to its highly adaptable nature (waveform, montage) and tolerability at low intensities (< 2 mA). Applied rhythmically, transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) may entrain neural oscillations in a frequency- and phase-specific manner, providing a causal perspective on brain–behaviour relationships. While the past decade has seen many behavioural and electrophysiological effects of tACS that suggest entrainment-mediated effects in the brain, it has been difficult to reconcile such reports with the weak intracranial field strengths (< 1 V/m) achievable at conventional intensities. In this review, we first describe the ongoing challenges faced by users of tACS. We outline the biophysics of electrical brain stimulation and the factors that contribute to the weak field intensities achievable in the brain. Since the applied current predominantly shunts through the scalp—stimulating the nerves that innervate it—the plausibility of transcutaneous (rather than transcranial) effects of tACS is also discussed. In examining the effects of tACS on brain activity, the complex problem of salvaging electrophysiological recordings from artefacts of tACS is described. Nevertheless, these challenges by no means mark the rise and fall of tACS: the second part of this review outlines the recent advancements in the field. We describe some ways in which artefacts of tACS may be better managed using high-frequency protocols, and describe innovative methods for current interactions within the brain that offer either dynamic or more focal current distributions while also minimising transcutaneous effects.

AbstractObjectiveTo estimate the comparative clinical efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults.DesignSystematic review with pairwise and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic search of Embase, PubMed/Medline, and PsycINFO up to 8 May 2018, supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of several reviews (published between 2009 and 2018) and included trials.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesClinical trials with random allocation to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (repetitive (rTMS), accelerated, priming, deep, and synchronised), theta burst stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), or sham therapy.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were response (efficacy) and all cause discontinuation (discontinuation of treatment for any reason) (acceptability), presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Remission and continuous depression severity scores after treatment were also examined.Results113 trials (262 treatment arms) that randomised 6750 patients (mean age 47.9 years; 59% women) with major depressive disorder or bipolar depression met the inclusion criteria. The most studied treatment comparisons were high frequency left rTMS and tDCS versus sham therapy, whereas recent treatments remain understudied. The quality of the evidence was typically of low or unclear risk of bias (94 out of 113 trials, 83%) and the precision of summary estimates for treatment effect varied considerably. In network meta-analysis, 10 out of 18 treatment strategies were associated with higher response compared with sham therapy: bitemporal ECT (summary odds ratio 8.91, 95% confidence interval 2.57 to 30.91), high dose right unilateral ECT (7.27, 1.90 to 27.78), priming transcranial magnetic stimulation (6.02, 2.21 to 16.38), magnetic seizure therapy (5.55, 1.06 to 28.99), bilateral rTMS (4.92, 2.93 to 8.25), bilateral theta burst stimulation (4.44, 1.47 to 13.41), low frequency right rTMS (3.65, 2.13 to 6.24), intermittent theta burst stimulation (3.20, 1.45 to 7.08), high frequency left rTMS (3.17, 2.29 to 4.37), and tDCS (2.65, 1.55 to 4.55). Network meta-analytic estimates of active interventions contrasted with another active treatment indicated that bitemporal ECT and high dose right unilateral ECT were associated with increased response. All treatment strategies were at least as acceptable as sham therapy.ConclusionsThese findings provide evidence for the consideration of non-surgical brain stimulation techniques as alternative or add-on treatments for adults with major depressive episodes. These findings also highlight important research priorities in the specialty of brain stimulation, such as the need for further well designed randomised controlled trials comparing novel treatments, and sham controlled trials investigating magnetic seizure therapy.

Scientists and clinicians have traditionally targeted single brain regions with stimulation to modulate brain function and disease. However, brain regions do not operate in isolation, but interact with other regions through networks. As such, stimulation of one region may impact and be impacted by other regions in its network. Here we test whether the effects of brain stimulation can be enhanced by simultaneously targeting a region and its network, identified with resting state functional connectivity MRI. Fifteen healthy participants received two types of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): a traditional two-electrode montage targeting a single brain region (left primary motor cortex [M1]) and a novel eight-electrode montage targeting this region and its associated resting state network. As a control, 8 participants also received multifocal tDCS mismatched to this network. Network-targeted tDCS more than doubled the increase in left M1 excitability over time compared to traditional tDCS and the multifocal control. Modeling studies suggest these results are unlikely to be due to tDCS effects on left M1 itself, however it is impossible to completely exclude this possibility. It also remains unclear whether multifocal tDCS targeting a network selectively modulates this network and which regions within the network are most responsible for observed effects. Despite these limitations, network-targeted tDCS appears to be a promising approach for enhancing tDCS effects beyond traditional stimulation targeting a single brain region. Future work is needed to test whether these results extend to other resting state networks and enhance behavioral or therapeutic effects. •Resting state functional connectivity can guide multifocal tDCS.•tDCS effects can be enhanced with network-targeted stimulation.•Multifocal tDCS mismatched to a network fails to produce similar effects.