An open letter concerning do-it-yourself users of transcranial direct current stimulation

Annals of Neurology

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-4

  Wurzman, Rachel ^a   Hamilton, Roy H ^a   Pascual Leone, Alvaro ^b   Fox, Michael D ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN DISEASE; BRAIN FUNCTION; COGNITION; EDITORIAL; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; TRANSCRANIAL DIRECT CURRENT STIMULATION;

EID: 84977609727     PISSN: 03645134     EISSN: 15318249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ana.24689     Document Type: Editorial

References (53)

1. Wexler A. The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals. J Med Ethics 2016;42:211–215.
2. Davis NJ, van Koningsbruggen MG. “Non-invasive” brain stimulation is not non-invasive. Front Syst Neurosci 2013;7:76.
3. Nitsche MA, Liebetanz D, Lang N, et al. Safety criteria for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114:2220–2222; author reply 2222–2223.
4. Cabrera LY, Evans EL, Hamilton RH. Ethics of the electrified mind: defining issues and perspectives on the principled use of brain stimulation in medical research and clinical care. Brain Topogr 2014;27:33–45.
5. Institute of Medicine. Non-invasive neuromodulation of the central nervous system: opportunities and challenges: workshop summary. Bain L, Posey Norris S, Stroud C, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.
6. Frank E, Wilfurth S, Landgrebe M, et al. Anodal skin lesions after treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul 2010;3:58–59.
7. Loo CK, Martin DM, Alonzo A, et al. Avoiding skin burns with transcranial direct current stimulation: preliminary considerations. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2011;14:425–426.
8. Shiozawa P, da Silva ME, Raza R, et al. Safety of repeated transcranial direct current stimulation in impaired skin: a case report. J ECT 2013;29:147–148.
9. International Federation of Neurophysiology. Transcranial electric stimulation in do-it-yourself applications. 2015. Available at: http://www.ifcn.info/uploadfiles/documents/2015/Using_tES_devices_as_DIY_FINAL_13Dec15.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2016.
10. Fitz NS, Reiner PB. The challenge of crafting policy for do-it-yourself brain stimulation. J Med Ethics 2015;41:410–412.
11. Datta A, Bansal V, Diaz J, et al. Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimul 2009;2(4):201–207, 207.e1.
12. Datta A, Truong D, Minhas P, et al. Inter-individual variation during transcranial direct current stimulation and normalization of dose using MRI-derived computational models. Front Psychiatry 2012;3:91.
13. Ruffini G, Fox MD, Ripolles O, et al. Optimization of multifocal transcranial current stimulation for weighted cortical pattern targeting from realistic modeling of electric fields. Neuroimage 2014;89:216–225.
14. Wagner T, Fregni F, Fecteau S, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study. Neuroimage. 2007;35:1113–1124.
15. Ruffini G, Wendling F, Merlet I, et al. Transcranial current brain stimulation (tCS): models and technologies. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2013;21:333–345.
16. Ardolino G, Bossi B, Barbieri S, Priori A. Non-synaptic mechanisms underlie the after-effects of cathodal transcutaneous direct current stimulation of the human brain. J Physiol 2005;568(pt 2):653–663.
17. Brunoni AR, Nitsche MA, Bolognini N, et al. Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): challenges and future directions. Brain Stimul 2012;5:175–195.
18. Fröhlich F, McCormick DA. Endogenous electric fields may guide neocortical network activity. Neuron 2010;67:129–143.
19. Parra LC, Bikson M. Model of the effect of extracellular fields on spike time coherence. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2004;6:4584–4587.
20. Reato D, Rahman A, Bikson M, Parra LC. Low-intensity electrical stimulation affects network dynamics by modulating population rate and spike timing. J Neurosci 2010;30:15067–15079.
21. Boros K, Poreisz C, Münchau A, et al. Premotor transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) affects primary motor excitability in humans. Eur J Neurosci 2008;27:1292–1300.
22. Keeser D, Meindl T, Bor J, et al. Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation changes connectivity of resting-state networks during fMRI. J Neurosci 2011;31:15284–15293.
23. Lang N, Siebner HR, Ward NS, et al. How does transcranial DC stimulation of the primary motor cortex alter regional neuronal activity in the human brain? Eur J Neurosci 2005;22:495–504.
24. Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA. Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist 2011;17:37–53.
25. Bikson M, Rahman A. Origins of specificity during tDCS: anatomical, activity-selective, and input-bias mechanisms. Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:688.
26. Andrews SC, Hoy KE, Enticott PG, et al. Improving working memory: the effect of combining cognitive activity and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Brain Stimul 2011;4:84–89.
27. Bortoletto M, Pellicciari MC, Rodella C, Miniussi C. The interaction with task-induced activity is more important than polarization: a tDCS study. Brain Stimul 2015;8:269–276.
28. Gill J, Shah-Basak PP, Hamilton R. It's the thought that counts: examining the task-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on executive function. Brain Stimul 2015;8:253–259.
29. Learmonth G, Thut G, Benwell CSY, Harvey M. The implications of state-dependent tDCS effects in aging: behavioural response is determined by baseline performance. Neuropsychologia 2015;74:108–119.
30. Iuculano T, Cohen Kadosh R. The mental cost of cognitive enhancement. J Neurosci 2013;33:4482–4486.
31. Cohen Kadosh R, Soskic S, Iuculano T, et al. Modulating neuronal activity produces specific and long-lasting changes in numerical competence. Curr Biol 2010;20:2016–2020.
32. Snowball A, Tachtsidis I, Popescu T, et al. Long-term enhancement of brain function and cognition using cognitive training and brain stimulation. Curr Biol 2013;23:987–992.
33. Batsikadze G, Moliadze V, Paulus W, et al. Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J Physiol 2013;591(pt 7):1987–2000.
34. Moliadze V, Antal A, Paulus W. Electrode-distance dependent after-effects of transcranial direct and random noise stimulation with extracephalic reference electrodes. Clin Neurophysiol 2010;121:2165–2171.
35. Nitsche MA, Doemkes S, Karaköse T, et al. Shaping the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 2007;97:3109–3117.
36. Opitz A, Paulus W, Will S, et al. Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroimage 2015;109:140–150.
37. Krause B, Cohen Kadosh R. Not all brains are created equal: the relevance of individual differences in responsiveness to transcranial electrical stimulation. Front Syst Neurosci 2014;8:25.
38. López-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Río-Rodríguez D, Fernández-Del-Olmo M. Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul 2014;7:372–380.
39. Steenbergen L, Sellaro R, Hommel B, et al. “Unfocus” on foc.us: commercial tDCS headset impairs working memory. Exp Brain Res 2016;234:637–643.
40. Fujiyama H, Hyde J, Hinder MR, et al. Delayed plastic responses to anodal tDCS in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 2014;6:115.
41. Moliadze V, Schmanke T, Andreas S, et al. Stimulation intensities of transcranial direct current stimulation have to be adjusted in children and adolescents. Clin Neurophysiol 2015;126:1392–1399.
42. Meiron O, Lavidor M. Unilateral prefrontal direct current stimulation effects are modulated by working memory load and gender. Brain Stimul 2013;6:440–447.
43. Smith MJ, Keel JC, Greenberg BD, et al. Menstrual cycle effects on cortical excitability. Neurology 1999;53:2069–2072.
44. Schade S, Moliadze V, Paulus W, Antal A. Modulating neuronal excitability in the motor cortex with tDCS shows moderate hemispheric asymmetry due to subjects' handedness: a pilot study. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2012;30:191–198.
45. Shiozawa P, da Silva ME, Cordeiro Q. Transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression in a patient with right hemispheric dominance: a case study. J ECT 2015;31:201–202.
46. Furuya S, Klaus M, Nitsche MA, et al. Ceiling effects prevent further improvement of transcranial stimulation in skilled musicians. J Neurosci 2014;34:13834–13839.
47. Sarkar A, Dowker A, Kadosh RC. Cognitive enhancement or cognitive cost: trait-specific outcomes of brain stimulation in the case of mathematics anxiety. J Neurosci 2014;34:16605–16610.
48. Brunoni AR, Ferrucci R, Bortolomasi M, et al. Interactions between transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and pharmacological interventions in the major depressive episode: findings from a naturalistic study. Eur Psychiatry 2013;28:356–361.
49. Nitsche MA, Kuo M-F, Karrasch R, et al. Serotonin affects transcranial direct current-induced neuroplasticity in humans. Biol Psychiatry 2009;66:503–508.
50. Boggio PS, Zaghi S, Villani AB, et al. Modulation of risk-taking in marijuana users by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Drug Alcohol Depend 2010;112:220–225.
51. Alonzo A, Brassil J, Taylor JL, et al. Daily transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) leads to greater increases in cortical excitability than second daily transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul 2012;5:208–213.
52. Truong DQ, Magerowski G, Blackburn GL, et al. Computational modeling of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in obesity: impact of head fat and dose guidelines. Neuroimage Clin 2013;2:759–766.
53. Datta A, Bikson M, Fregni F. Transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with skull defects and skull plates: high-resolution computational FEM study of factors altering cortical current flow. Neuroimage 2010;52:1268–1278.