New Paper: Review of Animal Models of tDCS

Our new review is published:

Jackson MP, Rahman A, Lafon B, Kronberg G, Ling D, Parra LC, Bikson M, Animal Models of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Methods and MechanismsClinical Neurophysiology, doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2016.08.016

Full PDF here: animalmodelstdcs_2016

Abstract:  The objective of this review is to summarize the contribution of animal research using direct current stimulation (DCS) to our understanding of the physiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We comprehensively address experimental methodology in animal studies, broadly classified as: 1) transcranial stimulation; 2) direct cortical stimulation in vivo and 3) in vitro models. In each case advantages and disadvantages for translational research are discussed including dose translation and the overarching “quasi-uniform” assumption, which underpins translational relevance in all animal models of tDCS. Terminology such as anode, cathode, inward current, outward current, current density, electric field, and uniform are defined. Though we put key animal experiments spanning decades in perspective, our goal is not simply an exhaustive cataloging of relevant animal studies, but rather to put them in context of ongoing efforts to improve tDCS. Cellular targets, including excitatory neuronal somas, dendrites, axons, interneurons, glial cells, and endothelial cells are considered. We emphasize neurons are always depolarized and hyperpolarized such that effects of DCS on neuronal excitability can only be evaluated within subcellular regions of the neuron. Findings from animal studies on the effects of DCS on plasticity (LTP/LTD) and network oscillations are reviewed extensively. Any endogenous phenomena dependent on membrane potential changes are, in theory, susceptible to modulation by DCS. The relevance of morphological changes (galvanotropy) to tDCS is also considered, as we suggest microscopic migration of axon terminals or dendritic spines may be relevant during tDCS. A majority of clinical studies using tDCS employ a simplistic dose strategy where excitability is singularly increased or decreased under the anode and cathode, respectively. We discuss how this strategy, itself based on classic animal studies, cannot account for the complexity of normal and pathological brain function, and how recent studies have already indicated more sophisticated approaches are necessary. One tDCS theory regarding “functional targeting” suggests the specificity of tDCS effects are possible by modulating ongoing function (plasticity). Use of animal models of disease are summarized including pain, movement disorders, stroke, and epilepsy.

Screen-Shot-2016-09-29-at-3.34.01-PM.png
Neural Engineering
Two Chapters in tDCS for in Neuropsychiatric Disorders books

D.Q. Truong. D. Adair, M. Bikson. Computer-based models of tDCS of tACS in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Clinical Principles ed. M.Nitsche, C. Loo and A. Brunoni 2016 10.1007/978-3-319-33967-2_5 p.47-66 . PDF

D. Ling, A. Rahman, M. Jackson M. Bikson Animal studies in the field of transcranial electric stimulation in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Clinical Principles M.Nitsche, C. Loo and A. Brunoni 2016 10.1007/978-3-319-33967-2_5 p.67-83 PDF

9-25-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
New Paper: Safety of tDCS, update 2016

Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016
Marom Bikson, Pnina Grossman, Chris Thomas, Adantchede Louis Zannou, Jimmy Jiang, Tatheer Adnan, Antonios P. Mourdoukoutas, Greg Kronberg, Dennis Truong, Paulo Boggio, André R. Brunoni, Leigh Charvet, Felipe Fregni, Brita Fritsch, Bernadette Gillick, Roy H. Hamilton, Benjamin M. Hampstead, Ryan Jankord, Adam Kirton, Helena Knotkova, David Liebetanz, Anli Liu, Colleen Loo, Michael A. Nitsche, Janine Reis, Jessica D. Richardson, Alexander Rotenberg, Peter E. Turkeltaub, Adam J. Woods
Brain Stimulation 2016, Vol. 9, Issue 5

Full PDF

8-26-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
Farewell to Selin!

Since our lab is multidisciplinary, we have members from other fields than engineering. Selin Unal, is a medical student from Turkey that joined our lab for the summer and she is going to continue her research from Turkey remotely! See you soon Selin!

8-7-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
Non-Invasive Neuromodulation Technology and Regulation Meeting

The “Non-invasive neuromodulation technology and regulation meeting” is a national meeting covering topics on the commercialization and regulation of non-invasive neuromodulation technology intended for medical and wellness use. This intensive one-day event is in direct response to the proliferation of clinical trials, popular press coverage, and now consumer-directed devices. The meeting is focused on transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) but spans any investigational techniques or marketed technologies that apply electrical energy to the head. Ample time will be allowed for discussion with speakers.

Date: August 28, 2016
Location Center for Discovery and Innovation (CDI) Room Number – 4352

For more information visit the links below:
About this Meeting
Location
Speakers
Registration and Tickets
Program

Neural Engineering Lab members can ask for free registraton code from Dr. Marom Bikson or Bhaskar Paneri


Neural Engineering
New Paper: tDCS modulates Pattern Seperation

Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates pattern separation

Neuroreport 2016 DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0000000000000621

Full paper PDF

 

Marcus Cappiello, Weizhen Xie, Alexander David, Marom Bikson and Weiwei Zhang

Abstract: Maintaining similar memories in a distinct and nonoverlapping manner, known as pattern separation, is an important mnemonic process. The medial temporal lobe, especially the hippocampus, has been implicated in this crucial memory function. The present study thus examines whether it is possible to modulate pattern separation using bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the temporal lobes. Specifically, in this study, pattern separation was assessed using the Mnemonic Similarity Task following 15-min offline bilateral temporal lobe tDCS (left cathode and right anode or left anode and right cathode) or sham stimulation. In the Mnemonic Similarity Task, participants studied a series of sequentially presented visual objects. In the subsequent recognition memory test, participants viewed a series of sequentially presented objects that could be old images from study, novel foils, or lures that were visually similar to the studied images. Participants reported whether these images were exactly the same as, similar to, or different from the studied images. Following both active tDCS conditions, participants were less likely to identify lures as ‘similar’ compared with the sham condition, indicating a reduction in pattern separation resulting from temporal lobe tDCS. In contrast, no significant difference in overall accuracy was found for participants’ discrimination of old and new images. Together, these results suggest that temporal lobe tDCS can selectively modulate the pattern separation function without changing participants’ baseline recognition memory performance.

6-26-16 2.PNG
Neural Engineering
Dr. Bikson speaks at NIH National Cancer Institute 6/13

Dr. Marom Bikson lectures at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Cancer Institute (NCI)

6/13/2016 NCI Shady Grove Campus Room TE406 9:30 AM

Medical Device Device for Innovative Cancer Therapies: Preclinical Evaluation, Clinical Trial Preparation, and a Prospective Clinical Trial of Intraoperative Real-Time Tissue Oxygenation Monitoring by Wireless Pulse Oximetry

6-13-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
New Paper: Spatial and polarity precision of concentric high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS)

Alam M, Truong DQ, Khadka N , Bikson M
_____________________________________________
Download: PDF Published in Physics in Medicine & Biology DOI 

Abstract:

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that applies low amplitude current via electrodes placed on the scalp. Rather than directly eliciting a neuronal response, tDCS is believed to modulate excitability—enhancing or suppressing neuronal activity in regions of the brain depending on the polarity of stimulation. The specificity of tDCS to any therapeutic application derives in part from how electrode configuration determines the brain regions that are stimulated. Conventional tDCS uses two relatively large pads (>25 cm2) whereas high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) uses arrays of smaller electrodes to enhance brain targeting. The 4  ×  1 concentric ring HD-tDCS (one center electrode surrounded by four returns) has been explored in application where focal targeting of cortex is desired. Here, we considered optimization of concentric ring HD-tDCS for targeting: the role of electrodes in the ring and the ring’s diameter. Finite element models predicted cortical electric field generated during tDCS. High resolution MRIs were segmented into seven tissue/material masks of varying conductivities. Computer aided design (CAD) model of electrodes, gel, and sponge pads were incorporated into the segmentation. Volume meshes were generated and the Laplace equation (  (σ  V)  =  0) was solved for cortical electric field, which was interpreted using physiological assumptions to correlate with stimulation and modulation. Cortical field intensity was predicted to increase with increasing ring diameter at the cost of focality while uni-directionality decreased. Additional surrounding ring electrodes increased uni-directionality while lowering cortical field intensity and increasing focality; though, this effect saturated and more than 4 surround electrode would not be justified. Using a range of concentric HD-tDCS montages, we showed that cortical region of influence can be controlled while balancing other design factors such as intensity at the target and uni-directionality. Furthermore, the evaluated concentric HD-tDCS approaches can provide categorical improvements in targeting compared to conventional tDCS. Hypothesis driven clinical trials, based on specific target engagement, would benefit by this more precise method of stimulation that could avoid potentially confounding brain regions.

5-27-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
New Paper: tDCS Remotely Supervised Home Delivery in MS

Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface doi: 10.1111/ner.12430

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Is Feasible for Remotely Supervised Home Delivery in Multiple Sclerosis

Read the full paper

Margaret Kasschau; Jesse Reisner; Kathleen Sherman; Marom Bikson; Abhishek Datta; Leigh E. Charvet

Objectives: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has potential clinical application for symptomatic management in mul- tiple sclerosis (MS). Repeated sessions are necessary in order to adequately evaluate a therapeutic effect. However, it is not feasible for many individuals with MS to visit clinic for treatment on a daily basis, and clinic delivery is also associated with sub- stantial cost. We developed a research protocol to remotely supervise self- or proxy-administration for home delivery of tDCS using specially designed equipment and a telemedicine platform.

Materials and Methods: We targeted ten treatment sessions across two weeks. Twenty participants (n 5 20) diagnosed with MS (any subtype), ages 30 to 69 years with a range of disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale or EDSS scores of 1.0 to 8.0) were enrolled to test the feasibility of the remotely supervised protocol.

Results: Protocol adherence exceeded what has been observed in studies with clinic-based treatment delivery, with all but one participant (95%) completing at least eight of the ten sessions. Across a total of 192 supervised treatment sessions, no session required discontinuation and no adverse events were reported. The most common side effects were itching/tingling at the elec- trode site.

Conclusions: This remotely supervised tDCS protocol provides a method for safe and reliable delivery of tDCS for clinical studies in MS and expands patient access to tDCS.

5-24-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
New Paper: HD-tDCS and Response Inhibition

Effects of High-Definition and Conventional tDCS on Response Inhibition

Brain Stimulation doi:10.1016/j.brs.2016.04.015.    Read the full PDF

J. Hogeveen , J. Grafman  , M. Aboseria , A. David , M. Bikson , K.K. Hauner

ABSTRACT Background: Response inhibition is a critical executive function, enabling the adaptive control of behavior in a changing environment. The inferior frontal cortex (IFC) is considered to be critical for response inhibition, leading researchers to develop transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) montages attempting to target the IFC and improve inhibitory performance. However, conventional tDCS montages produce diffuse current through the brain, making it difficult to establish causality between stimulation of any one given brain region and resulting behavioral changes. Recently, high-definition tDCS (HDtDCS) methods have been developed to target brain regions with increased focality relative to conventional tDCS. Objective: Remarkably few studies have utilized HD-tDCS to improve cognitive task performance, however, and no study has directly compared the behavioral effects of HD-tDCS to conventional tDCS. Methods: In the present study, participants received either HD-tDCS or conventional tDCS to the IFC during performance of a response inhibition task (stop-signal task, SST) or a control task (choice reaction time task, CRT). A third group of participants completed the same behavioral protocols, but received tDCS to a control site (mid-occipital cortex). Post-stimulation improvement in SST performance was analyzed as a function of tDCS group and the task performed during stimulation using both conventional and Bayesian parameter estimation analyses. Results: Bayesian estimation of the effects of HD- and conventional tDCS to IFC relative to control site stimulation demonstrated enhanced response inhibition for both conditions. No improvements were found after control task (CRT) training in any tDCS condition. Conclusion: Results support the use of both HD- and conventional tDCS to the IFC for improving response inhibition, providing empirical evidence that HD-tDCS can be used to facilitate performance on an executive function task.

5-23-16.PNG
Neural Engineering
New Paper: A simple method for EEG guided tES

A simple method for EEG guided transcranial electrical stimulation without models

Andrea Cancelli , Carlo Cottone , Franca Tecchio , Dennis Q Truong , Jacek Dmochowski and Marom Bikson

J. Neural Eng. 13 (2016) 036022

Full PDF: 2016 Cancelli A simple method

Abstract: Objective. There is longstanding interest in using EEG measurements to inform transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) but adoption is lacking because users need a simple and adaptable recipe. The conventional approach is to use anatomical head-models for both source localization (the EEG inverse problem) and current flow modeling (the tES forward model), but this approach is computationally demanding, requires an anatomical MRI, and strict assumptions about the target brain regions. We evaluate techniques whereby tES dose is derived from EEG without the need for an anatomical head model, target assumptions, difficult case-by-case conjecture, or many stimulation electrodes. Approach. We developed a simple two-step approach to EEG-guided tES that based on the topography of the EEG: (1) selects locations to be used for stimulation; (2) determines current applied to each electrode. Each step is performed based solely on the EEG with no need for head models or source localization. Cortical dipoles represent idealized brain targets. EEG-guided tES strategies are verified using a finite element method simulation of the EEG generated by a dipole, oriented either tangential or radial to the scalp surface, and then simulating the tES-generated electric field produced by each model-free technique. These model-free approaches are compared to a ‘gold standard’ numerically optimized dose of tES that assumes perfect understanding of the dipole location and head anatomy. We vary the number of electrodes from a few to over three hundred, with focality or intensity as optimization criterion. Main results. Model-free approaches evaluated include (1) voltage-to-voltage, (2) voltage-to-current; (3) Laplacian; and two Ad-Hoc techniques (4) dipole sink-to-sink; and (5) sink to concentric. Our results demonstrate that simple ad hoc approaches can achieve reasonable targeting for the case of a cortical dipole, remarkably with only 2–8 electrodes and no need for a model of the head. Significance. Our approach is verified directly only for a theoretically localized source, but may be potentially applied to an arbitrary EEG topography. For its simplicity and linearity, our recipe for model-free EEG guided tES lends itself to broad adoption and can be applied to static (tDCS), time-variant (e.g., tACS, tRNS, tPCS), or closed-loop tES.

5-23-16 2.PNG
Neural Engineering
New Paper: Selective alteration of human value decisions by tDCS

Nature Scientific Reports  Full paper link  PDF: srep25160

Selective alteration of human value decisions with medial frontal tDCS is predicted by changes in attractor dynamics
D. Hämmerer, J. Bonaiuto, M. Klein-Flügge, M. Bikson & S. Bestmann
Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 25160 (2016)
doi:10.1038/srep25160

Abstract:During value-based decision making, ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) is thought to support choices by tracking the expected gain from different outcomes via a competition-based process. Using a computational neurostimulation approach we asked how perturbing this region might alter this competition and resulting value decisions. We simulated a perturbation of neural dynamics in a biophysically informed model of decision-making through in silico depolarization at the level of neuronal ensembles. Simulated depolarization increased baseline firing rates of pyramidal neurons, which altered their susceptibility to background noise, and thereby increased choice stochasticity. These behavioural predictions were compared to choice behaviour in healthy participants performing similar value decisions during transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. We placed the soma depolarizing electrode over medial frontal PFC. In line with model predictions, this intervention resulted in more random choices. By contrast, no such effect was observed when placing the depolarizing electrode over lateral PFC. Using a causal manipulation of ventromedial and lateral prefrontal function, these results provide support for competition-based choice dynamics in human vmPFC, and introduce computational neurostimulation as a mechanistic assay for neurostimulation studies of cognition.

current flow.PNG
Neural Engineering