Safety parameter considerations of anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in rats

被引:43
|
作者
Jackson, Mark P. [1 ,2 ]
Truong, Dennis [2 ]
Brownlow, Milene L. [1 ,3 ]
Wagner, Jessica A. [1 ]
McKinley, R. Andy [1 ]
Bikson, Marom [2 ]
Jankord, Ryan [1 ]
机构
[1] Air Force Res Lab, 711th Human Performance Wing, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 USA
[2] CUNY City Coll, Dept Biomed Engn, CDI Bldg,85 St Nicholas Terrace, New York, NY 10031 USA
[3] Natl Acad Sci, Natl Res Council, Res Associateship Program, Washington, DC 20001 USA
关键词
tDCS; Rat cortex; Direct Current Stimulation; Current density; tDCS modeling; Microglia; NONINVASIVE BRAIN-STIMULATION; ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION; MOTOR CORTEX; TDCS; PHASE; PAIN; EXCITABILITY; PLASTICITY; DENSITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.bbi.2017.04.008
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
A commonly referenced transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) safety threshold derives from tDCS lesion studies in the rat and relies on electrode current density (and related electrode charge density) to support clinical guidelines. Concerns about the role of polarity (e.g. anodal tDCS), sub-lesion threshold injury (e.g. neuroinflammatory processes), and role of electrode montage across rodent and human studies support further investigation into animal models of tDCS safety. Thirty-two anesthetized rats received anodal tDCS between 0 and 5 mA for 60 min through one of three epicranial electrode montages. Tissue damage was evaluated using hemotoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, Iba-1 immunohistochemistry, and computational brain current density modeling. Brain lesion occurred after anodal tDCS at and above 0.5 mA using a 25.0 mm(2) electrode (electrode current density: 20.0 A/m(2)). Lesion initially occurred using smaller 10.6 mm(2) or 5.3 mm(2) electrodes at 0.25 mA (23.5 A/m(2)) and 0.5 mA (94.2 A/m(2)), respectively. Histological damage was correlated with computational brain current density predictions. Changes in microglial phenotype occurred in higher stimulation groups. Lesions were observed using anodal tDCS at an electrode current density of 20.0 A/m(2) which is below the previously reported safety threshold of 142.9 A/m(2) using cathodal tDCS. The lesion area is not simply predicted by electrode current density (and so not by charge density as duration was fixed); rather computational modeling suggests average brain current density as a better predictor for anodal tDCS. Nonetheless, under the assumption that rodent epicranial stimulation is a hypersensitive model, an electrode current density of 20.0 A/m(2) represents a conservative threshold for clinical tDCS, which typically uses an electrode current density of 2 A/m(2) when electrodes are placed on the skin (resulting in a lower brain current density). (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:152 / 161
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Expanding the parameter space of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex
    Agboada, Desmond
    Samani, Mohsen Mosayebi
    Jamil, Asif
    Kuo, Min-Fang
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2019, 9 (1)
  • [2] Expanding the parameter space of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex
    Desmond Agboada
    Mohsen Mosayebi Samani
    Asif Jamil
    Min-Fang Kuo
    Michael A. Nitsche
    Scientific Reports, 9
  • [3] Efficacy of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation is Related to Sensitivity to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
    Labruna, Ludovica
    Jamil, Asif
    Fresnoza, Shane
    Batsikadze, Giorgi
    Kuo, Min-Fang
    Vanderschelden, Benjamin
    Ivry, Richard B.
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    BRAIN STIMULATION, 2016, 9 (01) : 8 - 15
  • [4] The Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Working Memory
    Katsoulaki, Marianna
    Kastrinis, Alexandros
    Tsekoura, Maria
    GENEDIS 2016: GENETICS AND NEURODEGENERATION, 2017, 987 : 283 - 289
  • [5] Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhances Procedural Consolidation
    Tecchio, Franca
    Zappasodi, Filippo
    Assenza, Giovanni
    Tombini, Mario
    Vollaro, Stefano
    Barbati, Giulia
    Rossini, Paolo Maria
    JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2010, 104 (02) : 1134 - 1140
  • [6] Safety limits of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in rats
    Liebetanz, David
    Koch, Reinhard
    Mayenfels, Susanne
    Koenig, Fatima
    Paulus, Walter
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2009, 120 (06) : 1161 - 1167
  • [7] Response to comment on "Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation"
    Stonsaovapak, Chernkhuan
    Hemrungroj, Solaphat
    Terachinda, Pim
    Piravej, Krisna
    ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2022, 103 (02): : 373 - 374
  • [8] Somatosensory Gating Is Modulated by Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Montoro, Casandra, I
    Winterholler, Christine
    Terrasa, Juan L.
    Montoya, Pedro
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2021, 15
  • [9] After-effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the excitability of the motor cortex in rats
    Koo, Ho
    Kim, Min Sun
    Han, Sang Who
    Paulus, Walter
    Nitche, Michael A.
    Kim, Yun-Hee
    Kim, Hyoung-Ihl
    Ko, Sung-Hwa
    Shin, Yong-Il
    RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 34 (05) : 859 - 868
  • [10] Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (atDCS) on Sentence Comprehension
    Lum, Jarrad A. G.
    Clark, Gillian M.
    Rogers, Caitlyn M.
    Skalkos, James D.
    Fuelscher, Ian
    Hyde, Christian
    Enticott, Peter G.
    JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2019, 25 (03) : 331 - 335