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
  • [41] Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic pain in the elderly: a pilot study
    Concerto, Carmen
    Al Sawah, Mohomad
    Chusid, Eileen
    Trepal, Michael
    Taylor, Gregory
    Aguglia, Eugenio
    Battaglia, Fortunato
    AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 2016, 28 (02) : 231 - 237
  • [42] A phenomological model for capturing cerebrovascular reactivity to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation
    Dutta, Anirban
    Chowdhury, Shubhajit Roy
    Dutta, Arindam
    Sylaja, P. N.
    Guiraud, David
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    2013 6TH INTERNATIONAL IEEE/EMBS CONFERENCE ON NEURAL ENGINEERING (NER), 2013, : 827 - 830
  • [43] Acute anodal transcranial direct current stimulation improves the performance of professional rowers
    Ramos, Luciano
    Ramos, Tatiana Aparecida Magacho
    De Almeida, Rodrigo Freire
    da Silva-Rocha, Jader Vinicius
    Zimerer, Carla
    Areas, Fernando Zanela
    FRONTIERS IN SPORTS AND ACTIVE LIVING, 2024, 6
  • [44] Cortical Excitability through Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: a Computational Approach
    Arora, Yashika
    Chowdhury, Shubhajit Roy
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS, 2020, 44 (02)
  • [45] Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Anodal or cathodal stimulation for chronic stroke - which is better?
    Marquez, J. L.
    Parsons, M.
    Stoginovsky, E.
    Conley, A.
    Lagopolous, J.
    Karyinidis, F.
    CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2014, 37 : 300 - 300
  • [46] Differential Modulation of Corticospinal Excitability by Different Current Densities of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Bastani, Andisheh
    Jaberzadeh, Shapour
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (08):
  • [47] Preconditioning cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates the neuroplastic effect of subsequent anodal transcranial direct current stimulation applied during cycling in young adults
    Pourmajidian, Maryam
    Lauber, Benedikt
    Sidhu, Simranjit K.
    NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS, 2020, 714
  • [48] Safety Review of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Stroke
    Russo, Cristina
    Carneiro, Maira I. Souza
    Bolognini, Nadia
    Fregni, Felipe
    NEUROMODULATION, 2017, 20 (03): : 215 - 222
  • [49] Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy participants
    Boccard-Binet, Sandra
    Sen, Arjune
    EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR REPORTS, 2021, 15
  • [50] Establishing safety limits for transcranial direct current stimulation
    Bikson, Marom
    Datta, Abhishek
    Elwassif, Maged
    CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2009, 120 (06) : 1033 - 1034