Posts tagged Adpative
New Paper: Adaptive current tDCS up to 4 mA

Niranjan Khadka, Helen Borges, Bhaskar Paneri, Trynia Kaufman, Electra Nassis, Adantchede L. Zannou, Yungjae Shin, Hyeongseob Choi, Seonghoon Kim, Kiwon Lee, Marom Bikson. Adaptive current tDCS up to 4 mA. Brain Stimulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.07.027. PDF


Download: PDF published in Brain Stimulation — DOI

Abstract

Background: Higher tDCS current may putatively enhance efficacy, with tolerability the perceived limiting factor.

Objective: We designed and validated electrodes and an adaptive controller to provide tDCS up to 4 mA,while managing tolerability. The adaptive 4 mA controller included incremental ramp up, impedance-based current limits, and a Relax-mode where current is transiently decreased. Relax-mode was automatically activated by self-report VAS-pain score>5 and in some conditions by a Relax-button available to participants.

Methods: In a parallel-group participant-blind design with 50 healthy subjects, we used specialized electrodes to administer 3 daily session of tDCS for 11 min, with a lexical decision task as a distractor, in 5 study conditions: adaptive 4 mA, adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button, adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button, 2 mA, and sham. A tablet-based stimulator with a participant interface regularly queried VAS pain score and also limited current based on impedance and tolerability. An Abort-button provided in all conditions stopped stimulation. In the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button conditions, participants could trigger a Relax-mode ad libitum, in the latter case with incrementally longer current reductions. Primary outcome was the average current delivered during each session, VAS pain score, and adverse event questionnaires. Current delivered was analyzed either excluding or including dropouts who activated Abort (scored as 0 current).

Results: There were two dropouts each in the adaptive 4 mA and sham conditions. Resistance based current attenuation was rarely activated, with few automatic VAS pain score triggered relax-modes. In conditions with Relax-button option, there were significant activation often irrespective of VAS pain score. Including dropouts, current across conditions were significantly different from each other with maximum current delivered during adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button. Excluding dropouts, maximum current was delivered with adaptive 4 mA. VAS pain score and adverse events for the sham was only significantly lower than the adaptive 4 mA with Relax-button and adaptive 4 mA with historical-Relax-button. There was no difference in VAS pain score or adverse events between 2 mA and adaptive 4 mA.

Conclusions: Provided specific electrodes and controllers, adaptive 4 mA tDCS is tolerated and effectively blinded, with acceptability likely higher in a clinical population and absence of regular querying. Indeed,presenting participants with overt controls increases rumination on sensation.

Fig_1.jpg