This review updates and consolidates evidence on the safety of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Safety is here operationally defined by, and limited to, the absence of evidence for a Serious Adverse Effect, the criteria for which are rigorously defined. This review adopts an evidence-based approach, based on an aggregation of experience from human trials, taking care not to confuse speculation on potential hazards or lack of data to refute such speculation with evidence for risk. Safety data from animal tests for tissue damage are reviewed with systematic consideration of translation to humans. Arbitrary safety considerations are avoided. Computational models are used to relate dose to brain exposure in humans and animals. We review relevant dose-response curves and dose metrics (e.g. current, duration, current density, charge, charge density) for meaningful safety standards. Special consideration is given to theoretically vulnerable populations including children and the elderly, subjects with mood disorders, epilepsy, stroke, implants, and home users. Evidence from relevant animal models indicates that brain injury by Direct Current Stimulation (DCS) occurs at predicted brain current densities (6.3–13 A/m2) that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by conventional tDCS. To date, the use of conventional tDCS protocols in human trials (≤40 min, ≤4 mA, ≤7.2 Coulombs) has not produced any reports of a Serious Adverse Effect or irreversible injury across over 33,200 sessions and 1,000 subjects with repeated sessions. This includes a wide variety of subjects, including persons from potentially vulnerable populations.

Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques are used in experimental and clinical fields for their potential effects on brain network dynamics and behavior. Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), has gained popularity because of its convenience and potential as a chronic therapy. However, a mechanistic understanding of TES has lagged behind its widespread adoption. Here, we review data and modelling on the immediate neurophysiological effects of TES in vitro as well as in vivo in both humans and other animals. While it remains unclear how typical TES protocols affect neural activity, we propose that validated models of current flow should inform study design and artifacts should be carefully excluded during signal recording and analysis. Potential indirect effects of TES (e.g., peripheral stimulation) should be investigated in more detail and further explored in experimental designs. We also consider how novel technologies may stimulate the next generation of TES experiments and devices, thus enhancing validity, specificity, and reproducibility.

Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been reported to improve various forms of learning in humans. Stimulation is often applied during training, producing lasting enhancements that are specific to the learned task. These learning effects are thought be mediated by altered synaptic plasticity. However, the effects of DCS during the induction of endogenous synaptic plasticity remain largely unexplored. Objective/Hypothesis Here we are interested in the effects of DCS applied during synaptic plasticity induction. Methods To model endogenous plasticity we induced long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) at Schaffer collateral synapses in CA1 of rat hippocampal slices. Anodal and cathodal DCS at 20 V/m were applied throughout plasticity induction in both apical and basal dendritic compartments. Results When DCS was paired with concurrent plasticity induction, the resulting plasticity was biased towards potentiation, such that LTP was enhanced and LTD was reduced. Remarkably, both anodal and cathodal stimulation can produce this bias, depending on the dendritic location and type of plasticity induction. Cathodal DCS enhanced LTP in apical dendrites while anodal DCS enhanced LTP in basal dendrites. Both anodal and cathodal DCS reduced LTD in apical dendrites. DCS did not affect synapses that were weakly active or when NMDA receptors were blocked. Conclusions These results highlight the role of DCS as a modulator, rather than inducer of synaptic plasticity, as well as the dependence of DCS effects on the spatial and temporal properties of endogenous synaptic activity. The relevance of the present results to human tDCS should be validated in future studies.

The objective of this review is to summarize the contribution of animal research using direct current stimulation (DCS) to our understanding of the physiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We comprehensively address experimental methodology in animal studies, broadly classified as: 1) transcranial stimulation; 2) direct cortical stimulation in vivo and 3) in vitro models. In each case advantages and disadvantages for translational research are discussed including dose translation and the overarching “quasi-uniform” assumption, which underpins translational relevance in all animal models of tDCS. Terminology such as anode, cathode, inward current, outward current, current density, electric field, and uniform are defined. Though we put key animal experiments spanning decades in perspective, our goal is not simply an exhaustive cataloging of relevant animal studies, but rather to put them in context of ongoing efforts to improve tDCS. Cellular targets, including excitatory neuronal somas, dendrites, axons, interneurons, glial cells, and endothelial cells are considered. We emphasize neurons are always depolarized and hyperpolarized such that effects of DCS on neuronal excitability can only be evaluated within subcellular regions of the neuron. Findings from animal studies on the effects of DCS on plasticity (LTP/LTD) and network oscillations are reviewed extensively. Any endogenous phenomena dependent on membrane potential changes are, in theory, susceptible to modulation by DCS. The relevance of morphological changes (galvanotropy) to tDCS is also considered, as we suggest microscopic migration of axon terminals or dendritic spines may be relevant during tDCS. A majority of clinical studies using tDCS employ a simplistic dose strategy where excitability is singularly increased or decreased under the anode and cathode, respectively. We discuss how this strategy, itself based on classic animal studies, cannot account for the complexity of normal and pathological brain function, and how recent studies have already indicated more sophisticated approaches are necessary. One tDCS theory regarding “functional targeting” suggests the specificity of tDCS effects are possible by modulating ongoing function (plasticity). Use of animal models of disease are summarized including pain, movement disorders, stroke, and epilepsy.