Matthew Saw, Revekka Agababaeva, Mohammad A. Sabri, Marc Russo, Corey Hunter, Sayed Wahezi, Lawrence Poree, Marom Bikson,

Long Term Pain Reduction and Explantation Rates of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 2026, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094715926013061

Abstract: Background

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a therapeutic option for chronic pain conditions such as Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS), Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (PDPN), and radiculopathy. Treatment typically involves a temporary trial phase prior to permanent implantation. Despite demonstrated efficacy, trial phase failure and long-term SCS outcomes remain important considerations. The aim of this review is to quantify three key SCS outcomes: (1) trial phase nonresponse, (2) annual explantation rates after permanent implantation up to three years, and (3) annual <50% pain reduction rates among patients who retain their implant up to three years.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies reporting on SCS outcomes. Studies were included if they reported quantitative data on at least one of the three outcomes. Data was extracted and summarized across studies. A three-level binomial generalized linear mixed model with logit link was used to calculate pooled rates across included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool and NIH quality assessment tools as appropriate, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.

Results

38 studies were included in the analysis. The pooled trial phase failure rate was 16.2%. Pooled explant rates were 4.0%, 7.0%, and 11.9% at one, two, and three years respectively. Pooled rates of <50% pain reduction were 24.2%, 27.0%, and 32.8% at one, two, and three years respectively.

Conclusion

We aggregate and analyze durability of SCS outcomes according to a defined rubric. Outcomes were not stratified by factors that could influence response, such as waveform. 16.2% of patients assessed for SCS eligibility did not proceed past the trial phase. On average, at three years post-implantation, 44.7% of patients with permanent implants had undergone explantation or reported less than 50% pain relief.

Keywords: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS); chronic pain; neuropathic pain; explants; outcomes; neuromodulation

Salehinejad MA, Fathi Jouzdani A, Bandeira ID, Bender S, Bikson M, Castelo-Branco M, Cohen Kadosh R, Costanzo F, Croarkin PE, Desarkar P, Dyke K, Eickhoff S, Fitzgerald PB, Hartwigsen G, Koenig J, Martino D, Menghini D, Mirfazeli FS, Moliadze V, Nitsche MA, Oberman LM, Siniatchkin M, Vaziri Z, Vicario CM, Vöckel J, Wischnewski M, Wolters CH, Zangen A, Zaehle T, Zomorrodi R, Brunoni AR. Global prevalence and disability burden of brain disorders: Impact of neurological, mental, and substance use disorders.

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2026 Sep;188:106808. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2026.106808. PDF

Pundik S, Skelly M, Salameh A, Leonhardt L, Hardin EC, Hisel T, Duncan KR, Zink E, Carr SJ, Mosca L, Yaghmoor B, Bikson M, Daly JJ, McCabe J. Transcranial direct current stimulation with motor-learning based gait therapy post-stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2026 May 29;19(4):103132. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2026.103132. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42217542.

Abstract

Background: Persistent gait deficits after stroke are prevalent and negatively impact function. Motor learning methods promote neuroplasticity and can produce significant clinical gains, however recovery is limited for many individuals in the chronic phase. Transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) can enhance neuroplastic effects of training and can be easily paired with neurorehabilitation.

Objective: We tested active vs. sham bihemispheric 2 mA tDCS targeting primary motor leg regions paired with gait therapy.

Methods: Individuals(n = 44) were randomized to 10 sessions of active tDCS/sham tDCS paired with motor training. Outcomes were collected at baseline, mid-treatment, post-treatment and 6-week follow-up. TDCS-induced electric field(e-field) and lesion load were calculated using each participant's magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Statistical methods included longitudinal linear mixed-effects model with treatment group by time interaction effects, Wilcoxon signed rank test and correlation analyses.

Results: Thirty-nine individuals completed the study. No difference was observed between treatment groups. Total cohort analysis showed significant improvement (p < 0.05) in the following: Fugl-Meyer, fastest gait speed, preferred gait speed, Timed Up and Go, Functional Gait Assessment, and Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool across time, with maintenance or improvement at 6-week follow-up. E-field in targeted region ranged 0.10-0.29 V/m. Lesion load did not correlate with change in clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: Both groups improved across the clinical outcomes following short duration motor learning-based gait training with and without tDCS. Lesion load was not related to treatment response. E-field in targeted regions was variable across participants. Future studies employing optimized tDCS to ensure consistent dosing across subjects, paired with an effective gait training approach is needed.

Keywords: Brain stimulation; Electric field modeling; Gait; Lesion load; Motor learning; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Virtual reality.

Yener U, Caparó M, Naeimi T, Ma EM, Wallace MS, Gogoi R, Martinez F, Jani M, Seldin JM, Shaparin N, Hunter CW, Saw M, Kaufman A, Kankam S, Petersen EA, Bikson M, George TK, Ciftci HB, Deer TR, Wahezi SE. Waveform-Conversion to Salvage Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence. Neuromodulation. 2026 May 8:S1094-7159(26)00116-9. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2026.04.018. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42249871.

PDF

Abstract

Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become increasingly widespread in recent years for the management of refractory chronic pain, primarily owing to the development of novel waveform technology allowing variable spinal cord modulation, and indication expansion. The existing literature suggests that despite having favorable initial responses, the efficacy of SCS sometimes is reduced over time. To restore analgesic efficacy, a strategy of altering stimulation waveforms known as salvage therapy has been used. Here, we consolidate the existing evidence and describe the efficacy of salvage therapy.

Materials and methods: A literature search using relevant keywords was conducted on PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library data bases, yielding a total of 809 articles. After a full text review and screening for consistency with eligibility criteria were conducted, 22 studies with a collective sample size of 1591 patients were included in the final analysis. Data extraction was performed by six reviewers, with a secondary reviewer verifying each entry.

Results: Of the 1591 patients included in our review, the most frequent indication for salvage therapy was loss of waveform efficacy and paresthesia coverage. In most studies, patients received salvage therapy after experiencing loss of efficacy with a single waveform. Most studies also did not strictly control the phase in which salvage therapy was implemented, with only eight of 22 studies reporting exclusively trial phase interventions. The efficacy of salvage therapy was found to be favorable, with 685 of 879 salvage therapy trials (77.9%) being reported as successful.

Conclusion: New waveform technologies in SCS have expanded therapeutic options for patients with refractory chronic pain. Available evidence suggests that waveform switching may restore analgesic benefit in a subset of patients who experience loss of efficacy after an initial favorable response. However, many salvage strategies involve device revision or generator replacement, and the long-term durability of these interventions remains uncertain. Further prospective studies are needed to better define patient selection, timing of intervention, and long-term outcomes after waveform-based salvage strategies.

Taylor JJ, Stagg CJ, Bègue I, Bikson M, Brunoni AR, Caulfield KA, Ng E, Doose J, Sackeim HA, George MS. Accelerating the therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation: A Neuroscience School of Advanced Studies (NSAS) challenge workshop. Brain Stimul. 2026 May 13;19(4):103120. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2026.103120.

Highlights

• Accelerated protocols deliver ≥2 sessions per day.

• Accelerated ECT dates to the 1960s but remains untested with modern strategies.

• Accelerated TMS has regulatory clearance and clinical reimbursement pathways.

• Data for emerging brain stimulation modalities remain limited.

• Durability and parameter space require systematic study.

Abstract

Background

Noninvasive brain stimulation is typically delivered once daily, but accelerated protocols delivering multiple daily treatments have re-emerged to shorten time to clinical improvement.

Methods

At the Neuroscience School of Advanced Studies Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Challenge Workshop (Crans-Montana, Switzerland, October 21-24, 2025), we reviewed the literature on accelerated protocols across noninvasive brain stimulation modalities such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), transcranial vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS), and transcranial focused ultrasound (tUS). Accelerated protocols were defined as multiple daily treatments (≥2/day).

Results

Accelerated ECT protocols date back to the 1960s, when multiple seizure inductions per day produced more rapid clinical improvement but greater cognitive adverse effects. Accelerated TMS protocols emerged in the mid-2000s and gained popularity in the late 2010s, when protocols delivering more than three treatments per day began to show faster antidepressant effects. Accelerated protocols with other modalities or for indications other than major depressive disorder are in early stages.

Discussion

Accelerated protocols may reduce response latency without diminishing response magnitude. However, the durability of accelerated protocols remains unclear, and systematic exploration of parameter space across modalities is needed.

Dr. Marom Bikson will have several lecture at the International Neuromodulation Society 2026 in Lisbon, Portugal, 9-14 May 2026

-Noninvasive Brain Stimulation - Pre-Conference Day - Date Sun, 10.05.2026 - Session Time 08:00 - 17:15 - Room Auditorium III + IV - Chair(s) Marom Bikson (United States of America) Noah S. Philip (United States of America)

-WEARABLE DISPOSABLE BRAIN STIMULATION Lecture Time 10:45 - 11:00 Slides PDF

-Oral Poster Presentations 04: Neurostimulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders Date Mon, 11.05.2026 Room Pavilion 3 (Room 3A+3B) CLOSING THE LOOP: HEART RATE VARIABILITY (HRV) AS A BIOMARKER OF TDCS RESPONSE IN DEPRESSION Lecture Time 17:15 - 17:25

-Breakout 01 - Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Pain and Headache. Date Tue, 12.05.2026 Room Auditorium I. OPTIMIZED DESIGN OF HOME-BASED NEUROMODULATION FOR MIGRAINE AND PAIN Lecture Time 11:45 - 12:00 Slides PDF

-Plenary Session 06 Date Wed, 13.05.2026. Room Auditorium I. TDCS IN DEPRESSION: NEW APPROACHES AND OPPORTUNITIES Lecture Time 14:15 - 14:45 slides PDF

-Breakout 04 - tDCS for Depression. Date Thu, 14.05.2026. Room Pavilion 3 (Room 3A+3B). HIGH-CAPACITY (6+ MA) TRANSCRANIAL DIRECT CURRENT STIMULATION Lecture Time 09:20 - 09:40

Image credit Jeremy Koff

Perianen Ramasawmy, Marom Bikson, Jerome Brunelin, Kyle Donnery, Alexander Hunold, Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur, Marine Mondino, Teresa Schuhmann, Antonio Oliviero, Andrea Antal,

Home use of low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation in clinical practice: an IFCN handbook chapter.

Clinical Neurophysiology Practice, Volume 11, 2026, Pages 218-251, ISSN 2467-981X,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnp.2026.03.006. Download PDF

Abstract: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) includes a growing set of techniques aimed at modulating brain activity without surgery or implants. Transcranial magnetic (TMS) and electrical stimulation (tES) are among the most established methods. tES delivers low-intensity current via scalp electrodes, offering a cheaper and portable option, especially for home-based use. Clinical evidence suggests that the effects of tES are cumulative with consecutive applications needed to achieve meaningful changes. The therapeutic application of the clinic-based tES usually involves a minimum of two weeks of daily visits to the clinical institute, which poses a large burden and stress on patients. Home-based tES, e.g. under remote supervision (RS-tES), following adequate training by trained professionals paves the path to increasing the accessibility of the technology to patients. In 2025, the US FDA approved the first home-based tDCS system for the treatment of “moderate to severe major depressive disorder in the current episode, either as monotherapy or as an adjunctive treatment, in patients 18 years and older who are not considered treatment refractory to medication. In this work, the latest knowledge related to home-use of tES is introduced, including the methodology, most frequent clinical applications, advances and limitations.

Kyle Donnery, Mohamad FallahRad, Catarina V. Ferraz, Mark S. George, Roy H. Hamilton, Marom Bikson. (2026) Advancing Brain Stimulation to First-Line Psychiatric Therapy: Wearable Disposable Electrotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250669 download PDF

Salehinejad, M.A., Hallajian, AH., Wischnewski, M. Alemanm M, Bikson, M et al. Transcranial electrical stimulation for the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder: a triple meta-analysis. Nat. Mental Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-026-00590-z download: PDF

Ghazaleh Soleimani, Ivan Alekseichuk, Christian Aurup, Til Ole Bergmann, Sven Bestmann, Lysianne Beynel, Carys Evans, Flavio Frohlich, Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari, Colleen A. Hanlon, Florian Kasten, Elisa E. Konofagou, Maximilian Lueckel, Javier Márquez-Ruiz, Lucia Mencarelli, Mohsen Mosayebi-Samani, Cecilia Neige, Alexander Opitz, Angel Peterchev, Oula Puonti, Harold A. Sackeim, Guillermo Sánchez-Garrido Campos, Hartwig R. Siebner, Axel Thielscher, Andreas Vlachos, Mihaly Voroslakos, Michael A. Nitsche, Sarah H. Lisanby, Marom Bikson, Hamed Ekhtiari,

Dose-Response Relationships in Transcranial Brain Stimulation: Physics, Physiology and Mechanism, Brain Stimulation, 2026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2026.103067.

Abstract: The use of noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS), and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), has grown significantly over the past two decades. Evidence indicates that the dose-response relationship in brain stimulation is neither straightforward nor monotonic, with outcomes influenced by factors such as the brain state, anatomical variability, and neurophysiological mechanisms. Despite advancements in the field, there is still no consensus on standards for estimating and reporting delivered and received stimulation doses or defining dose-response relationships. This paper addresses these gaps by discussing four key areas: (1) factors influencing the delivered dose (stimulation parameters applied at the scalp), (2) quantification of the received dose (electric or acoustic fields delivered to brain tissue), (3) characterization of physiological, behavioral, and molecular responses to specific delivered/received doses, and (4) the dose-response relationship, which describes how variations in dose modulate brain function and behavior. Drawing on evidence from human and animal studies conducted in silico, in vitro, and in vivo, we outline challenges, propose solutions, and summarize current consensus standards. By promoting rigorous methodologies and transparent reporting, this paper aims to advance the reproducibility, safety, and efficacy of research on dose-response assessment in transcranial brain stimulation and its clinical applications.

Matej Slovak, David Kemlink, Pavel Dusek, Petra Rekova, Vratislav Fabian, Martin Jurka, Davide Carone, Alistair Perry, George W.J. Harston, Evzen Ruzicka, Dagmar Altmanova, Lukas Lambert, Andrea Burgetova, Helena Knotkova, Abhishek Datta, Marom Bikson, Michael A. Nitsche, Mersedeh Bahr-Hosseini, Jeffrey L. Saver, Transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible in hyperacute ischemic stroke (DICAST-SF trial), Neurotherapeutics, 2026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurot.2026.e00844

Abstract: Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (C-tDCS) is a potential neuroprotective method in the hyperacute phase of ischemic stroke. We aimed to assess safety, tolerability, feasibility, and potential efficacy of C-tDCS in stroke patients with salvageable penumbra. DICAST-SF was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled (3 active: 1 sham), 3 + 3 dose-escalation trial. Inclusion criteria were stroke due to occlusion of the internal carotid or middle cerebral artery, last known well time within 24 h, substantial penumbra on CT perfusion, and ineligibility for mechanical thrombectomy. We applied C-tDCS at six dose tiers over the affected primary motor cortex. The primary safety outcome was the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH) rate at 24 h post-stimulation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (AICH), early neurological deterioration, serious adverse events, and 90-day mortality. Tolerability was assessed by completion rate and questionnaires. Feasibility threshold was defined as median randomization-to-C-tDCS start time within 10 min in the last ten patients. Twenty five patients were enrolled (19 active, 6 sham), mean age 81 (SD 12) years, 16 women, median NIHSS 8 (IQR 6–16). Ten active and 4 sham patients were treated with thrombolysis. No SICH occurred. Three AICH (2 post-thrombolysis) occurred in the active arm. Rates of early deterioration, serious adverse events, and mortality (4 active vs. 2 sham) were comparable. C-tDCS was well tolerated and feasible, median randomization-to-C-tDCS start time was 8 (7–9) min. C-tDCS in hyperacute stroke was safe, well tolerated, and feasible. Findings support further evaluation in larger efficacy trials.

Trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04801446.

New lab publication:

Kimberley Ladner, Eline M. Versantvoort, Marjolein E.G. Thijssen, Dave Mugan, Stuart N. Baker, Alexander Kraskov, Quoc C. Vuong, Mahima Sharma, Marom Bikson, Birte E. Dietz, Stefano Palmisani, Ilona Obara (2026) Electrophysiologic Characteristics of Epidural Spinal Signals in Preclinical Models of Spinal Cord Stimulation. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface in press https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurom.2026.01.001

Wahezi S, Kaye AD, Yener U, Hunter C, George TK, Bikson M, Caparo M, Day M, Eshraghi Y, Kaufman A, Zhang H, Pak D, Pritzlaff S, Cifti HB, Shaparin N, Schatman M, Lempka S, Manchikanti L. Selecting Neuromodulation Devices For Chronic Pain Conditions: A Narrative Review. Pain Physician. 2026 Jan;29(1):17-36. PMID: 41628204. PDF

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017–2025: An update) – endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN)

2025 Clinical Neurophysiology Available online 23 November 2025, 2111436

Andrea Antal , Jovana Bjekić , Ana Ganho-Ávila , Ivan Alekseichuk , Sara Assecondi , Til Ole Bergmann , Marom Bikson , Jerome Brunelin , Andre R Brunoni , Leigh Charvet , Robert Chen , Roi Cohen Kadosh , Lukas Diedrich , Giordano D’Urso , Roberta Ferrucci , Saša R Filipović , Paul B Fitzgerald , Agnes Flöel , Flavio Fröhlich , Mark S George , Roy H. Hamilton , Jens Haueisen , Mark Hallett , Christoph S Herrmann , Friedhelm C Hummel , Shapour Jaberzadeh , Berthold Langguth , Michal Lavidor , Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur , Carlo Miniussi , Vera Moliadze , Mika Nikander , Stevan Nikolin , Michael A Nitsche , Alexander Opitz , Jacinta O’Shea , Frank Padberg , Christian Plewnia , Alberto Priori , Perianen Ramasawmy , Lais B Razza , Simone Rossi , John Rothwell , Maria A Rueger , Giulio Ruffini , Alexander T Sack , Ricardo Salvador , Klaus Schellhorn , Teresa Schuhmann , Yuichiro Shirota , Hartwig Roman Siebner , Axel Thielscher , Yoshikazu Ugawa , Susanne Uusitalo , Anna Wexler , Walter Paulus , Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt , Vincent Van Waes , Maximilian J Wessel , Miles Wischnewski , Chris BaekenUlf Ziemann

Donnery Kyle, Pilloni Giuseppina, FallahRad Mohamad, Lee Kiwon, Han Byungyun, Park Soonhi, Kim Jihye, Charvet Leigh, Bikson Marom. (2026) Automated thermo-mechanical therapy for immediate relief in chronic non-specific lower back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics. Volume 6 - 2025. DOI=10.3389/fnrgo.2025.1674928 PDF

ABSTRACT: ObjectiveChronic non-specific lower back pain (cNSLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition, imposing a substantial socioeconomic burden due to high healthcare costs and productivity losses, with limited accessible and effective long-term treatment options. Automated Thermo-mechanical Therapy (ATT) is a promising, non-drug intervention that leverages innovative technical advances to provide multimodal pain relief, offering accessibility and low-cost delivery. This study tested ATT for immediate pain relief in individuals with cNSLBP in a single-session, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.MethodsForty participants with cNSLBP were assigned to receive either active ATT (n = 20) or control ATT (n = 20) in a 40-min session with urn randomization. The active device applied heated cylindrical rollers along the spine, using far-infrared heat and mechanical tissue stimulation tailored to spinal alignment. In the control condition, the device used minimal mechanical therapy intensity without heat, targeting only the cervical area to avoid lower back therapeutic effects. Pre- and post-intervention assessments measured changes in pain intensity (primary outcome) via a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS-P100), alongside secondary outcomes assessing pain characteristics, anxiety, and functional mobility.ResultsThe active ATT group showed a significant reduction in pain on the VAS-P100, with an average decrease of 46.8%, compared to 17.0% in the control group. Participants in the active group also reported significantly greater subjective pain relief (p = 7.88e−05). Secondary outcomes demonstrated significant improvements in lumbar flexibility (Modified-Modified Schober Test, MMST) for the active ATT group compared to the control group (p = 0.0031). No adverse events were reported, and all participants tolerated the intervention well.ConclusionsA single session of ATT provides immediate, significant pain relief in individuals with cNSLBP, supporting its potential as a safe, non-invasive option for managing chronic back pain. Future studies should examine the long-term benefits of repeated ATT sessions and explore mechanistic insights into thermo-mechanical stimulation's effects on pain and function.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT06769321.

Marom Bikson, Andre R. Brunoni, Mark S. George. US FDA approves home-delivered tDCS for treating depression. Brain Stimulation. Volume 19, Issue 1. 2026,103021, ISSN 1935-861X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2025.103021 PDF

Mersedeh Bahr-Hosseini, Mona Asghariahmadabad, Marom Bikson, Jeffrey L. Saver, David S. Liebeskind, Kambiz Nael. Changes in Oxygen Metabolism Biomarkers of Ischemic Tissue Treated With Electrical Stimulation. Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology 2025 https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.125.002094 PDF

In the first-in-human proof-of-concept TESSERACT study (Transcranial Electrical Stimulation in Stroke Early After Onset Clinical Trial), delivering high-definition cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (HD C-tDCS) to penumbral tissue was shown to be a feasible and tolerable treatment strategy for acute ischemic stroke.

Prof. Marom Bikson gives to lectures the COPENHAGEN BRAIN STIMULATION 2025

1. Workshop Program. Dec 11, 2025 “Hands-On With Old and New Electrodes for tES”

Slides PDF

Key references:

Khadka, N., Woods, A. J., & Bikson, M. (2019) Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Electrodes. In: Knotkova H., Nitsche M., Bikson M., Woods A. (eds) Practical Guide to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95948-1_10 PDF

Merrill, D. R., Bikson, M., & Jefferys, J. G. R. (2005). Electrical stimulation of excitable tissue: Design of efficacious and safe protocols. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 141(2), 171-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.10.020 PDF

2. Main Program Dec 12, 2025 “Transcranial Direct Current Simulation:Go Big, or Go Home, or Both”

Slides PDF

Key references:

Mohamad FallahRad, Kyle Donnery, Mojtaba Belali Koochesfahani, Zeeshan Chaudhry, Rayyan Bhuiyan, Benjamin Babaev, Matthew Saw, Tiffany Liu, Miguel R. Diaz Uraga, Mahdi Zaman, Kisholoy Saha, Osvaldo Velarde, Ayman Rddad, Niranjan Khadka, Myesha Thahsin, Alexander Couzis & Marom Bikson. Wearable disposable electrotherapy. Nat Commun 16, 9060 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64101-x PDF

High-Capacity transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HC-tDCS) Preprint

“High-Definition Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (HD-tES): Prospects in Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders)” Dr. Marom Bikson keynote remote presentation at “2025 Hongdao Psychiatry Development Conference: Current Status and Future of Neuromodulation Technology.” hosted by Hefei Fourth People's Hospital, November 15, 2025, in Hefei, China.

Watch recording on YouTube