The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation to prefrontal areas is related to underlying cortical morphology

Applying a weak electrical current to the cortex can have effects on a range of behaviours. Techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been widely used in both research and clinical settings. However, there is significant variability across individuals in terms of their responsiveness to stimulation, which poses practical challenges to the application of tDCS, but also provides a unique opportunity to study the link between the brain and behaviour. Here, we assessed the role of individual differences in cortical morphology - specifically in prefrontal cortical regions of interest - for determining the influence of tDCS on decision-making performance. Specifically, we employed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a previously replicated paradigm in which we modulated learning in a simple decision-making task by applying tDCS to the left prefrontal cortex in human subjects of both sexes. Cortical thickness of the left (but not right) prefrontal cortex accounted for almost 35% of the variance in stimulation efficacy across subjects. This is the first demonstration that variations in cortical architecture are associated with reliable differences in the effects of tDCS on cognition. Our findings have important implications for predicting the likely efficacy of different non-invasive brain stimulation treatments on a case by case basis.

[1]  Wagner F. Gattaz,et al.  Trial of Electrical Direct‐Current Therapy versus Escitalopram for Depression , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  E. Vogel,et al.  Neural Measures of Individual Differences in Selecting and Tracking Multiple Moving Objects , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  Yu Huang,et al.  ROAST: An Open-Source, Fully-Automated, Realistic Volumetric-Approach-Based Simulator For TES , 2018, 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[4]  D. Purpura,et al.  INTRACELLULAR ACTIVITIES AND EVOKED POTENTIAL CHANGES DURING POLARIZATION OF MOTOR CORTEX. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  G. Rees,et al.  The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behaviour and cognition , 2011, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[6]  R. Gur,et al.  Development of Abbreviated Nine-Item Forms of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test , 2012, Assessment.

[7]  Peter Colquhoun,et al.  Rhythms in Performance , 1981 .

[8]  D. Samuel Schwarzkopf,et al.  The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  Christopher L. Asplund,et al.  Isolation of a Central Bottleneck of Information Processing with Time-Resolved fMRI , 2006, Neuron.

[10]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity , 2004, Nature.

[11]  M. Stokes,et al.  Biophysical determinants of transcranial magnetic stimulation: effects of excitability and depth of targeted area. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  P. Matthews,et al.  Polarity-Sensitive Modulation of Cortical Neurotransmitters by Transcranial Stimulation , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  P. Dux,et al.  Training conquers multitasking costs by dividing task representations in the frontoparietal-subcortical system , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Automatic parcellation of human cortical gyri and sulci using standard anatomical nomenclature , 2010, NeuroImage.

[15]  Paul M. Thompson,et al.  Robust Brain Extraction Across Datasets and Comparison With Publicly Available Methods , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  Shane E. Ehrhardt,et al.  Accounting for individual differences in the response to tDCS with baseline levels of neurochemical excitability , 2019, Cortex.

[17]  Lucia M. Li,et al.  The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies , 2015, Front. Cell. Neurosci..

[18]  Stephen J. Gray,et al.  Does tDCS over prefrontal cortex improve episodic memory retrieval? Potential importance of time of day , 2018, Cognitive neuroscience.

[19]  M. Seghier,et al.  Interpreting and Utilising Intersubject Variability in Brain Function , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Alexander Opitz,et al.  Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation , 2015, NeuroImage.

[21]  P. Matthews,et al.  Polarity and timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in explicit motor learning , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation , 2000, The Journal of physiology.

[23]  J. Mattingley,et al.  Anodal tDCS applied during multitasking training leads to transferable performance gains , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[24]  René Marois,et al.  Disrupting Prefrontal Cortex Prevents Performance Gains from Sensory-Motor Training , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  Michael J. Grey,et al.  False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials , 2019, Brain Stimulation.

[26]  J. Mattingley,et al.  Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function , 2014, Trends in Neurosciences.

[27]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  Functional brain networks related to individual differences in human intelligence at rest , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[28]  Guy E. Hawkins,et al.  Increasing propensity to mind‐wander by transcranial direct current stimulation? A registered report , 2020, The European journal of neuroscience.

[29]  Satoru Otani,et al.  Functional and Dysfunctional Synaptic Plasticity in Prefrontal Cortex: Roles in Psychiatric Disorders , 2010, Biological Psychiatry.

[30]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  Improvements in Attention and Decision-Making Following Combined Behavioral Training and Brain Stimulation , 2016, Cerebral cortex.

[31]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Increasing propensity to mind-wander with transcranial direct current stimulation , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  A. Dale,et al.  Whole Brain Segmentation Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain , 2002, Neuron.

[33]  A. Welford.  THE ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD’ AND THE TIMING OF HIGH‐SPEED PERFORMANCE—A REVIEW AND A THEORY , 1952 .

[34]  H. Johansen-Berg,et al.  The Role of GABA in Human Motor Learning , 2011, Current Biology.

[35]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS , 2013, Cortex.

[36]  Mark W Greenlee,et al.  Pretraining Cortical Thickness Predicts Subsequent Perceptual Learning Rate in a Visual Search Task. , 2016, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  Arno Villringer,et al.  Cortical thickness in primary sensorimotor cortex influences the effectiveness of paired associative stimulation , 2012, NeuroImage.

[38]  Paul E. Dux,et al.  On the relationship between response selection and response inhibition: An individual differences approach , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[39]  S. Blakemore,et al.  Studying individual differences in human adolescent brain development , 2018, Nature Neuroscience.

[40]  T. Robbins,et al.  The prefrontal cortex: Executive and cognitive functions. , 1998 .

[41]  C. Im,et al.  Inconsistent outcomes of transcranial direct current stimulation may originate from anatomical differences among individuals: Electric field simulation using individual MRI data , 2014, Neuroscience Letters.

[42]  O. Carter,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be) , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[43]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

[44]  Jason B Mattingley,et al.  Prefrontal Cortex Structure Predicts Training-Induced Improvements in Multitasking Performance , 2016, The Journal of Neuroscience.