Can electric fields explain inter-individual variability in transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex?

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor cortical excitability are highly variable between individuals. Inter-individual differences in the electric fields generated in the brain by tDCS might play a role in the variability. Here, we explored whether these fields are related to excitability changes following anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex (M1). Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured in 28 healthy subjects before and after 20 min sham or 1 mA anodal tDCS of right M1 in a double-blind crossover design. The electric fields were individually modelled based on magnetic resonance images. Statistical analysis indicated that the variability in the MEPs could be partly explained by the electric fields, subjects with the weakest and strongest fields tending to produce opposite changes in excitability. To explain the findings, we hypothesized that the likely locus of action was in the hand area of M1, and the effective electric field component was that in the direction normal to the cortical surface. Our results demonstrate that a large part of inter-individual variability in tDCS may be due to differences in the electric fields. If this is the case, electric field dosimetry could be useful for controlling the neuroplastic effects of tDCS.

[1]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  B. Kowalski,et al.  Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial , 1986 .

[3]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation , 1996, Human brain mapping.

[4]  N Accornero,et al.  Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp , 1998, Neuroreport.

[5]  A. Dale,et al.  High‐resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[6]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Cortical Surface-Based Analysis I. Segmentation and Surface Reconstruction , 1999, NeuroImage.

[7]  P M Rossini,et al.  Applications of magnetic cortical stimulation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[8]  A M Dale,et al.  Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[10]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans , 2001, Neurology.

[11]  S. Wold,et al.  PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics , 2001 .

[12]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Pharmacological Modulation of Cortical Excitability Shifts Induced by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Humans , 2003, The Journal of physiology.

[13]  J. Jefferys,et al.  Effects of uniform extracellular DC electric fields on excitability in rat hippocampal slices in vitro , 2004, The Journal of physiology.

[14]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest , 2006, NeuroImage.

[15]  L. Cohen,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008 , 2008, Brain Stimulation.

[16]  C. Almli,et al.  Unbiased nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood , 2009, NeuroImage.

[17]  D. Reato,et al.  Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: Improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad , 2009, Brain Stimulation.

[18]  Heidi M. Schambra,et al.  Direct Current Stimulation Promotes BDNF-Dependent Synaptic Plasticity: Potential Implications for Motor Learning , 2010, Neuron.

[19]  H. Abdi.  Partial least squares regression and projection on latent structure regression (PLS Regression) , 2010 .

[20]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Unbiased average age-appropriate atlases for pediatric studies , 2011, NeuroImage.

[21]  Christian Grefkes,et al.  Functional localization in the human brain: Gradient‐echo, spin‐echo, and arterial spin‐labeling fMRI compared with neuronavigated TMS , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[22]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[23]  Akimasa Hirata,et al.  Fast multigrid-based computation of the induced electric field for transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  L. Parra,et al.  Inter-Individual Variation during Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Normalization of Dose Using MRI-Derived Computational Models , 2012, Front. Psychiatry.

[25]  F. Fregni,et al.  Motor cortex-induced plasticity by noninvasive brain stimulation: a comparison between transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation , 2013, Neuroreport.

[26]  M. Bikson,et al.  Computational modeling of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in obesity: Impact of head fat and dose guidelines☆ , 2013, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[27]  Walter Paulus,et al.  Induction of Late LTP-Like Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex by Repeated Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation , 2013, Brain Stimulation.

[28]  Shapour Jaberzadeh,et al.  Different Current Intensities of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Do Not Differentially Modulate Motor Cortex Plasticity , 2013, Neural plasticity.

[29]  Peter Willett,et al.  What is a tutorial , 2013 .

[30]  M. Nitsche,et al.  Partially non‐linear stimulation intensity‐dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans , 2013, The Journal of physiology.

[31]  Agnes Flöel,et al.  tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases , 2014, NeuroImage.

[32]  B. Cheeran,et al.  Inter-individual Variability in Response to Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paradigms , 2014, Brain Stimulation.

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

[34]  Walter Paulus,et al.  Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases , 2014, NeuroImage.

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

[36]  J. J. González-Henríquez,et al.  Intra-individual variability in the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[37]  Satoshi Tanaka,et al.  Inter-subject Variability in Electric Fields of Motor Cortical tDCS , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[38]  O. Carter,et al.  Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: A systematic review , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[39]  Colleen K. Loo,et al.  Inter- and Intra-individual Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) at Varying Current Intensities , 2015, Brain Stimulation.

[40]  Bidirectional variability in motor cortex excitability modulation following 1 mA transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy participants , 2016, Physiological reports.

[41]  N. Wenderoth,et al.  A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools , 2016, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[42]  Akimasa Hirata,et al.  Electric fields of motor and frontal tDCS in a standard brain space: A computer simulation study , 2016, NeuroImage.

[43]  Ludovica Labruna,et al.  Systematic evaluation of the impact of stimulation intensity on neuroplastic after‐effects induced by transcranial direct current stimulation , 2017, The Journal of physiology.

[44]  Martin A. Lindquist,et al.  Response variability of different anodal transcranial direct current stimulation intensities across multiple sessions , 2017, Brain Stimulation.

[45]  Giulio Ruffini,et al.  Multifocal tDCS targeting the resting state motor network increases cortical excitability beyond traditional tDCS targeting unilateral motor cortex , 2017, NeuroImage.

[46]  Akimasa Hirata,et al.  TMS Motor Thresholds Correlate With TDCS Electric Field Strengths in Hand Motor Area , 2018, Front. Neurosci..

[47]  J. Rothwell,et al.  tDCS changes in motor excitability are specific to orientation of current flow , 2017, Brain Stimulation.