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
  • [41] Anodal online transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates visual motion perceptual learning
    Wu, Di
    Zhang, Pan
    Wang, Yifan
    Liu, Na
    Sun, Kewei
    Wang, Panhui
    Xiao, Wei
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2023, 57 (03) : 479 - 489
  • [42] Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over lower limb primary motor cortex on motor learning in healthy individuals
    Foerster, Aguida
    Dutta, Anirban
    Kuo, Min-Fang
    Paulus, Walter
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2018, 47 (07) : 779 - 789
  • [43] The impact of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex on motor learning in older adults with low levels of activity
    Abedi, Razieh
    Talimkhani, Ailin
    Mohammadzadeh, Zahra
    Daryabor, Aliyeh
    Naimi, Sedigheh Sadat
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THERAPY AND REHABILITATION, 2022, 29 (10)
  • [44] Effect of Aging on Cortical Current Flow Due to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: considerations for safety
    Thomas, Chris
    Datta, Abhishek
    Woods, Adam
    [J]. 2018 40TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY (EMBC), 2018, : 3084 - 3087
  • [45] Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Facilitate Dynamic Balance Task Learning in Healthy Old Adults
    Kaminski, Elisabeth
    Hoff, Maike
    Rjosk, Viola
    Steele, Christopher J.
    Gundlach, Christopher
    Sehm, Bernhard
    Villringer, Arno
    Ragert, Patrick
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, 2017, 11
  • [46] Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Schizophrenia
    Agarwal, Mahavir
    Shivakumar, Venkataram
    Bose, Anushree
    Subramaniam, Aditi
    Nawani, Hema
    Chhabra, Harleen
    Kalmady, Sunil V.
    Narayanaswamy, Janardhanan C.
    Venkatasubramanian, Ganesan
    [J]. CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 11 (03) : 118 - 125
  • [47] Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhances Procedural Consolidation
    Tecchio, Franca
    Zappasodi, Filippo
    Assenza, Giovanni
    Tombini, Mario
    Vollaro, Stefano
    Barbati, Giulia
    Rossini, Paolo Maria
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2010, 104 (02) : 1134 - 1140
  • [48] Physics of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Devices and Their History
    Truong, Dennis Q.
    Bikson, Marom
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECT, 2018, 34 (03) : 137 - 143
  • [49] Safety of Special Waveform of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (TES): In Vivo Assessment
    Adeel, Muhammad
    Chen, Chun-Ching
    Lin, Bor-Shing
    Chen, Hung-Chou
    Liou, Jian-Chiun
    Li, Yu-Ting
    Peng, Chih-Wei
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES, 2022, 23 (12)
  • [50] Practical use and indications of transcranial direct current stimulation
    Mares, T.
    Albrecht, J.
    Buday, J.
    Ceresnakova, S.
    Raboch, J.
    Anders, M.
    [J]. CESKA A SLOVENSKA NEUROLOGIE A NEUROCHIRURGIE, 2019, 82 (01) : 37 - 47