Our findings provide the first experimental evidence that modulating activity in the DLPFC reduces vigilance to threatening stimuli. This significant reduction in fear vigilance is similar to that seen with anxiolytic treatments in the same cognitive paradigm. The finding that DLPFC tDCS acutely alters the processing of threatening information suggests a potential cognitive mechanism that could underwrite treatment effects in clinical populations.

IMPORTANCE Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is under clinical investigation as a treatment for major depressive disorder. However, the mechanisms of action are unclear, and there is a lack of neuroimaging evidence, particularly among individuals with affective dysfunction. Furthermore, there is no direct causal evidence among humans that the prefrontal-amygdala circuit functions as described in animal models (ie, that increasing activity in prefrontal cortical control regions inhibits amygdala response to threat). OBJECTIVE To determine whether stimulation of the prefrontal cortex reduces amygdala threat reactivity in individuals with trait anxiety. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This community-based randomized clinical trial used a double-blind, within-participants design (2 imaging sessions per participant). Eighteen women with high trait anxiety (age range, 18-42 years) who scored greater than 45 on the trait measure of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were randomized to receive active or sham tDCS of the DLPFC during the first session and the other intervention during the next session. Each intervention was followed immediately by a functional imaging scan during which participants performed an attentional task requiring them to ignore threatening face distractors. Data were collected from May 7 to October 6, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Amygdala threat response, measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS Data from 16 female participants (mean age, 23 years; range, 18-42 years), with 8 in each group, were analyzed. Compared with sham stimulation, active DLPFC stimulation significantly reduced bilateral amygdala threat reactivity (z = 3.30, P = .04) and simultaneously increased activity in cortical regions associated with attentional control (z = 3.28, P < .001). In confirmatory behavioral analyses, there was a mean improvement in task accuracy of 12.2% (95% CI, 0.30%-24.0%; mean [SD] difference in number of correct answers, 2.2 [4.5]; t 15 = 1.94, P = .04) after active DLPFC stimulation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These results reveal a causal role for prefrontal regulation of amygdala function in attentional capture by threat in individuals with high trait anxiety. The finding that prefrontal stimulation acutely increases attentional control signals and reduces amygdala threat reactivity may indicate a neurocognitive mechanism that could contribute to tDCS treatment effects in affective disorders.

Understanding and reducing variability of response to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) requires measuring what factors predetermine sensitivity to tDCS and tracking individual response to tDCS. Human trials, animal models, and computational models suggest structural traits and functional states of neural systems are the major sources of this variance. There are 118 published tDCS studies (up to October 1, 2018) that used fMRI as a proxy measure of neural activation to answer mechanistic, predictive, and localization questions about how brain activity is modulated by tDCS. FMRI can potentially contribute as: a measure of cognitive state‐level variance in baseline brain activation before tDCS; inform the design of stimulation montages that aim to target functional networks during specific tasks; and act as an outcome measure of functional response to tDCS. In this systematic review, we explore methodological parameter space of tDCS integration with fMRI spanning: (a) fMRI timing relative to tDCS (pre, post, concurrent); (b) study design (parallel, crossover); (c) control condition (sham, active control); (d) number of tDCS sessions; (e) number of follow up scans; (f) stimulation dose and combination with task; (g) functional imaging sequence (BOLD, ASL, resting); and (h) additional behavioral (cognitive, clinical) or quantitative (neurophysiological, biomarker) measurements. Existing tDCS‐fMRI literature shows little replication across these permutations; few studies used comparable study designs. Here, we use a representative sample study with both task and resting state fMRI before and after tDCS in a crossover design to discuss methodological confounds. We further outline how computational models of current flow should be combined with imaging data to understand sources of variability. Through the representative sample study, we demonstrate how modeling and imaging methodology can be integrated for individualized analysis. Finally, we discuss the importance of conducting tDCS‐fMRI with stimulation equipment certified as safe to use inside the MR scanner, and of correcting for image artifacts caused by tDCS. tDCS‐fMRI can address important questions on the functional mechanisms of tDCS action (e.g., target engagement) and has the potential to support enhancement of behavioral interventions, provided studies are designed rationally.