Transcranial direct current stimulation to the parietal cortex in hemispatial neglect: A feasibility study

Smit, Miranda; Schutter, Dennis J.L.G.; Nijboer, Tanja C.W.; Visser-Meily, Johanna M A; Kappelle, L. Jaap; Kant, Neeltje; Penninx, Janne; Dijkerman, H. Chris

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.014

Cited by 42 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, one study did not find any effect of tDCS (Smit et al 2015). Possibly this is due to their low sample size (n = 5)-a problem that plagues all these studies-or because their patients were in the later, chronic stage of stroke, when recovery is more difficult.…”

Section: Hemispatial Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Possibly this is due to their low sample size (n = 5)-a problem that plagues all these studies-or because their patients were in the later, chronic stage of stroke, when recovery is more difficult. Still, the null result by Smit et al (2015) carries some weight, as their study was relatively well-designed: it included multiple patients, was sham-controlled, and had multiple (five) stimulation sessions-only two other studies fit all these criteria (Làdavas et al 2015;Yi et al 2016).…”

Section: Hemispatial Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transcranial Electrical Stimulation as a Tool to Enhance Attention

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention is a fundamental cognitive process-without it, we would be helplessly adrift in an overload of sensory input. There is considerable interest in techniques that can be used to enhance attention, including transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). We present an overview of 52 studies that have paired attention tasks with tES, mostly in the form of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). In particular, we discuss four aspects of attention that have been most extensively targeted to date: visual search, spatial orienting (e.g., Posner cueing tasks), spatial bias (e.g., line bisection tasks), and sustained attention. Some promising results have been reported in each of these domains. However, drawing general conclusions about the efficacy of tES is at present hampered by a large diversity in study design and inconsistent findings. We highlight some pitfalls and opportunities and suggest how these may be addressed in future research aiming to use tES as a tool to enhance or test theoretical hypotheses about attention.

show abstract

Section: Hemispatial Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hemispatial Neglectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcranial Electrical Stimulation as a Tool to Enhance Attention

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One mid-study termination of participation illustrates the desirability of more detailed reporting of adverse events and dropouts to determine whether or not they meet Serious Adverse Effect criteria. In this case [28], one patient’s participation was discontinued because the person “became emotional” and “felt morose”. While authors state they could not establish a causal relation between the emotional state and tDCS, the details of that investigation are not reported, nor is follow up to confirm that the patient recovered from this state.…”

Section: Definition and Considerations Of Serious Adverse Effects Formentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, there are few reports of dropouts with 14 from 6 studies [153], [79], [28], [154], [155], [156] out of 507 total participants across 33 studies. Reporting criteria and reasons for dropouts vary and include personal reasons (e.g.…”

Section: Tdcs Special Considerations For Safety In Strokementioning

confidence: 99%

Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Thus, tDCS could be an attractive, cheaper alternative. In exploring the therapeutic utility of tDCS, Smit et al (2015) asked whether tDCS can enhance the recovery of visuo-spatial hemineglect in chronic, right-hemisphere damaged stroke patients. In line with Hopfner et al (2015), their logic was based on the interhemispheric competition account -according to which a dampening of the neural activity of the intact, presumably overactive (left) hemisphere, combined with increased neural activity in the damaged hemisphere might restore cortical interhemispheric balance-which in turn might reduce left neglect.…”

Section: Clinical Applications Of Non-invasive Brain Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%