BackgroundMeasurements and models of current flow in the brain during transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) indicate stimulation of regions in-between electrodes. Moreover, the folded cortex results in local fluctuations in current flow intensity and direction, and animal studies suggest current flow direction relative to cortical columns determines response to tDCS.MethodsHere we test this idea by using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Motor Evoked Potentials (TMS-MEP) to measure changes in corticospinal excitability following tDCS applied with electrodes aligned orthogonal (across) or parallel to M1 in the central sulcus.ResultsCurrent flow models predicted that the orthogonal electrode montage produces consistently oriented current across the hand region of M1 that flows along cortical columns, while the parallel electrode montage produces non-uniform current directions across the M1 cortical surface. We find that orthogonal, but not parallel, orientated tDCS modulates TMS-MEPs. We also show modulation is sensitive to the orientation of the TMS coil (PA or AP), which is thought to select different afferent pathways to M1.ConclusionsOur results are consistent with tDCS producing directionally specific neuromodulation in brain regions in-between electrodes, but shows nuanced changes in excitability that are presumably current direction relative to column and axon pathway specific. We suggest that the direction of current flow through cortical target regions should be considered for targeting and dose-control of tDCS.

There are substantial differences across species in the organization and function of the motor pathways. These differences extend to basic electrophysiological properties. Thus, in rat motor cortex, pyramidal cells have long duration action potentials, while in the macaque, some pyramidal neurons exhibit short duration “thin” spikes. These differences may be related to the expression of the fast potassium channel Kv3.1b, which in rat interneurons is associated with generation of thin spikes. Rat pyramidal cells typically lack these channels, while there are reports that they are present in macaque pyramids. Here we made a systematic, quantitative comparison of the Kv3.1b expression in sections from macaque and rat motor cortex, using two different antibodies (NeuroMab, Millipore). As our standard reference, we examined, in the same sections, Kv3.1b staining in parvalbumin‐positive interneurons, which show strong Kv3.1b immunoreactivity. In macaque motor cortex, a large sample of pyramidal neurons were nearly all found to express Kv3.1b in their soma membranes. These labeled neurons were identified as pyramidal based either by expression of SMI32 (a pyramidal marker), or by their shape and size, and lack of expression of parvalbumin (a marker for some classes of interneuron). Large (Betz cells), medium, and small pyramidal neurons all expressed Kv3.1b. In rat motor cortex, SMI32‐postive pyramidal neurons expressing Kv3.1b were very rare and weakly stained. Thus, there is a marked species difference in the immunoreactivity of Kv3.1b in pyramidal neurons, and this may be one of the factors explaining the pronounced electrophysiological differences between rat and macaque pyramidal neurons.

Measurements and models of current flow in the brain during transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) indicate stimulation of regions in-between electrodes. Moreover, the cephalic cortex result in local fluctuations in current flow intensity and direction, and animal studies suggest current flow direction relative to cortical columns determines response to tDCS. Here we test this idea by measuring changes in cortico-spinal excitability by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Motor Evoked Potentials (TMS-MEP), following tDCS applied with electrodes aligned orthogonal (across) or parallel to M1 in the central sulcus. Current flow models predicted that the orthogonal electrode montage produces consistently oriented current across the hand region of M1 that flows along cortical columns, while the parallel electrode montage produces none-uniform current directions across the M1 cortical surface. We find that orthogonal, but not parallel, orientated tDCS modulates TMS-MEPs. We also show modulation is sensitive to the orientation of the TMS coil (PA or AP), which is through to select different afferent pathways to M1. Our results are consistent with tDCS producing directionally specific neuromodulation in brain regions in-between electrodes, but shows nuanced changes in excitability that are presumably current direction relative to column and axon pathway specific. We suggest that the direction of current flow through cortical target regions should be considered for targeting and dose-control of tDCS.