Safety parameter considerations of anodal transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in rats

被引:44
|
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
  • [21] 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
  • [22] Resting state functional connectivity measures correlate with the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation
    Hordacre, Brenton
    Moezzi, Bahar
    Goldsworthy, Mitchell R.
    Rogasch, Nigel C.
    Graetz, Lynton J.
    Ridding, Michael C.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2017, 45 (06) : 837 - 845
  • [23] Effects of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Chronic Neuropathic Pain in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis
    Mori, Francesco
    Codeca, Claudia
    Kusayanagi, Hajime
    Monteleone, Fabrizia
    Buttari, Fabio
    Fiore, Stefania
    Bernardi, Giorgio
    Koch, Giacomo
    Centonze, Diego
    JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2010, 11 (05) : 436 - 442
  • [24] Predicting Modulation in Corticomotor Excitability and in Transcallosal Inhibition in Response to Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Davidson, Travis W.
    Bolic, Miodrag
    Tremblay, Francois
    FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 10
  • [25] Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of motor cortex does not ameliorate spasticity in multiple sclerosis
    Iodice, Rosa
    Dubbioso, Raffaele
    Ruggiero, Lucia
    Santoro, Lucio
    Manganelli, Fiore
    RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2015, 33 (04) : 487 - 492
  • [26] Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) boosts dominant brain oscillations
    Luft, Caroline Di Bernardi
    Zioga, Ioanna
    Bhattacharya, Joydeep
    BRAIN STIMULATION, 2018, 11 (03) : 660 - 662
  • [27] 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
  • [28] Exploring and optimizing the neuroplastic effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex of older humans
    Farnad, Leila
    Ghasemian-Shirvan, Ensiyeh
    Mosayebi-Samani, Mohsen
    Kuo, Min-Fang
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    BRAIN STIMULATION, 2021, 14 (03) : 622 - 634
  • [29] The Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Left and Right Temporal Cortex on the Cardiovascular Response: A Comparative Study
    Angius, Luca
    Marcora, Samuele M.
    Hopker, James G.
    Mauger, Alexis R.
    FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY, 2018, 9
  • [30] Differential Modulation of Corticospinal Excitability by Different Current Densities of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Bastani, Andisheh
    Jaberzadeh, Shapour
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (08):