Neural signature of tDCS, tPCS and their combination: Comparing the effects on neural plasticity

Abstract

Transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are two noninvasive neuromodulatory brain stimulation techniques whose effects on human brain and behavior have been studied individually. In the present study we aimed to quantify the effects of tDCS and tPCS, individually and in combination, on cortical activity, sensitivity and pain-related assessments in healthy individuals in order to understand their neurophysiological mechanisms and potential applications in clinical populations. A total of 48 healthy individuals participated in this randomized double blind sham controlled study. Participants were randomized to receive a single stimulation session of either: active or sham tPCS and active or sham tDCS. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), sensitivity and pain assessments were used before and after each stimulation session. We observed that tPCS had a higher effect on power, as compared to tDCS, in several bandwidths on various cortical regions: the theta band in the parietal region (p = 0.021), the alpha band in the temporal (p = 0.009), parietal (p = 0.0063), and occipital (p < 0.0001) regions. We found that the combination of tPCS and tDCS significantly decreased power in the low beta bandwidth of the frontal (p = 0.0006), central (p = 0.0001), and occipital (p = 0.0003) regions, when compared to sham stimulation. Additionally, tDCS significantly increased power in high beta over the temporal (p = 0.0015) and parietal (p = 0.0007) regions, as compared to sham. We found no effect on sensitivity or pain-related assessments. We concluded that tPCS and tDCS have different neurophysiological mechanisms, elicit distinct signatures, and that the combination of the two leads to no effect or a decrease on qEEG power. Further studies are required to examine the effects of these techniques on clinical populations in which EEG signatures have been found altered.

Can Digital Games Be a Way of Improving the Neuroplasticity in Stroke Damage? Can the Adult Brain Grow New Cells or Rewire Itself in Response to a New Experience?

“…The conclusions confirm the notion that it is important to provide stimulation to neurons for them to remain active and form new connections and finally promoting rehabilitation [34]. Voilà that's it!…”

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, Transcranial Pulsed Current Stimulation, and Their Combination on Brain Oscillations in Patients with Chronic Visceral Pain: A Pilot Crossover Randomized Controlled Study

“…The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Healthy subjects’ cohort data have been published elsewhere ( 26 ).…”

“…Continuous variables (i.e., age and years of education) were compared using a t -test, while gender was analyzed using a χ 2 test. Regarding EEG, baseline rhythms for each frequency band were compared between patients and HC ( 26 ), using a Mann–Whitney U test.…”

“…In this scenario, we conducted a pilot study with a twofold aim: first, we wanted to assess baseline cortical activity of CVP patients; results are compared with those obtained by a normative sample of neurological healthy participants, published elsewhere ( 26 ). Second, we sought to assess the effects of two tES interventions, on cortical activity by means of EEG.…”

Median nerve stimulation induced motor learning in healthy adults: A study of timing of stimulation and type of learning

“…Recent studies show the effects of varying intensity and random frequency ranges of stimulation on neural effects (Chen, Lin, Chen, & Fregni, ; Chen et al., ; Morales‐Quezada, Saavedra, Rozisky, Hadlington, & Fregni, ; Morales‐Quezada et al., ). In the sham procedure, the device setup remained unchanged, and excepted active stimulation was only applied for the first and last 30 s. We have successfully used this method in our other studies using pulsed peripheral stimulation with similar intensities (Thibaut et al., ; Vasquez, Thibaut, Morales‐Quezada, Leite, & Fregni, ; Vasquez et al., ). Labuschagne Foundation (Luzerne, Switzerland) provided the MNS stimulation devices.…”