Incomplete evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is investigated to modulate neuronal function by applying a fixed low-intensity direct current to scalp. OBJECTIVES: We critically discuss evidence for a monotonic response in effect size with increasing current intensity, with a specific focus on a question if increasing applied current enhance the efficacy of tDCS. METHODS: We analyzed tDCS intensity does-response from different perspectives including biophysical modeling, animal modeling, human neurophysiology, neuroimaging and behavioral/clinical measures. Further, we discuss approaches to design dose-response trials. RESULTS: Physical models predict electric field in the brain increases with applied tDCS intensity. Data from animal studies are lacking since a range of relevant low-intensities is rarely tested. Results from imaging studies are ambiguous while human neurophysiology, including using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a probe, suggests a complex state-dependent non-monotonic dose response. The diffusivity of brain current flow produced by conventional tDCS montages complicates this analysis, with relatively few studies on focal High Definition (HD)-tDCS. In behavioral and clinical trials, only a limited range of intensities (1-2 mA), and typically just one intensity, are conventionally tested; moreover, outcomes are subject brain-state dependent. Measurements and models of current flow show that for the same applied current, substantial differences in brain current occur across individuals. Trials are thus subject to inter-individual differences that complicate consideration of population-level dose response. CONCLUSION: The presence or absence of simple dose response does not impact how efficacious a given tDCS dose is for a given indication. Understanding dose-response in human applications of tDCS is needed for protocol optimization including individualized dose to reduce outcome variability, which requires intelligent design of dose-response studies

The design, evaluation, and reporting on non- pharmacological, cognition- oriented treatments for older adults: Results of a survey of experts

IntroductionCognitive decline and dementia significantly affect independence and quality of life in older adults; therefore, it is critical to identify effective cognition- oriented treatments (COTs; eg, cognitive training, rehabilitation) that can help maintain or enhance cognitive functioning in older adults, as well as reduce dementia risk or alleviate symptoms associated with pathological processes.MethodsThe Cognitive Intervention Design Evaluation and Reporting (CIDER), a working group from the Non- Pharmacological Interventions Professional Interest Area (NPI- PIA) of the Alzheimer’s Association conducted as survey in 2017 with experts in COTs worldwide. The survey’s aims were three- fold: (1) determine the common attitudes, beliefs, and practices of experts involved in the COTs research targeting older people; (2) identify areas of relative agreement and disagreement among experts in the field; and (3) offer a critical review of the literature, including recommendations for future research.ResultsThe survey identified several areas of agreements among experts on critical features of COTs, and on study design and outcome measures. Nevertheless, there were some areas with relative disagreement. Critically, expert opinions were not always supported by scientific evidence, suggesting that methodologic improvements are needed regarding design, implementation, and reporting of COTs. There was a clear consensus that COTs provide benefits and should be offered to cognitively unimpaired older adults, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and mild dementia, but opinions differed for moderate and severe dementia. In addition, there is no consensus on the potential role of COTs in dementia prevention, indicating that future research should prioritize this aspect.DiscussionEvidence of COTs in older adults is encouraging, but additional evidence is needed to enhance dementia prevention. Consensus building and guidelines in the field are critical to improve and accelerate the development of high- quality evidence for COTs in cognitively unimpaired older adults, and those with MCI and dementia.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155935/1/trc212024_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155935/2/trc212024.pd

Toward a theory‐based specification of non‐pharmacological treatments in aging and dementia: Focused reviews and methodological recommendations

INTRODUCTION: Non-pharmacological treatments (NPTs) have the potential to improve meaningful outcomes for older people at risk of, or living with dementia, but research often lacks methodological rigor and continues to produce mixed results. METHODS: In the current position paper, experts in NPT research have specified treatment targets, aims, and ingredients using an umbrella framework, the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System. RESULTS: Experts provided a snapshot and an authoritative summary of the evidence for different NPTs based on the best synthesis efforts, identified main gaps in knowledge and relevant barriers, and provided directions for future research. Experts in trial methodology provide best practice principles and recommendations for those working in this area, underscoring the importance of prespecified protocols. DISCUSSION: We conclude that the evidence strongly supports various NPTs in relation to their primary targets, and discuss opportunities and challenges associated with a unifying theoretical framework to guide future efforts in this area

Incomplete Evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is investigated to modulate neuronal function by applying a fixed low-intensity direct current to scalp. Objectives: We critically discuss evidence for a monotonic response in effect size with increasing current intensity, with a specific focus on a question if increasing applied current enhance the efficacy of tDCS. Methods: We analyzed tDCS intensity does-response from different perspectives including biophysical modeling, animal modeling, human neurophysiology, neuroimaging and behavioral/clinical measures. Further, we discuss approaches to design dose-response trials. Results: Physical models predict electric field in the brain increases with applied tDCS intensity. Data from animal studies are lacking since a range of relevant low-intensities is rarely tested. Results from imaging studies are ambiguous while human neurophysiology, including using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a probe, suggests a complex state-dependent non-monotonic dose response. The diffusivity of brain current flow produced by conventional tDCS montages complicates this analysis, with relatively few studies on focal High Definition (HD)-tDCS. In behavioral and clinical trials, only a limited range of intensities (1-2mA), and typically just one intensity, are conventionally tested; moreover, outcomes are subject brain-state dependent. Measurements and models of current flow show that for the same applied current, substantial differences in brain current occur across individuals. Trials are thus subject to inter-individual differences that complicate consideration of population-level dose response. Conclusion: The presence or absence of simple dose response does not impact how efficacious a given tDCS dose is for a given indication. Understanding dose-response in human applications of tDCS is needed for protocol optimization including individualized dose to reduce outcome variability, which requires intelligent design of dose-response studies

Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) aims to alter brain function non-invasively by applying current to electrodes on the scalp. Decades of research and technological advancement are associated with a growing diversity of tES methods and the associated nomenclature for describing these methods. Whether intended to produce a specific response so the brain can be studied or lead to a more enduring change in behavior (e.g. for treatment), the motivations for using tES have themselves influenced the evolution of nomenclature, leading to some scientific, clinical, and public confusion. This ambiguity arises from (i) the infinite parameter space available in designing tES methods of application and (ii) varied naming conventions based upon the intended effects and/or methods of application. Here, we compile a cohesive nomenclature for contemporary tES technologies that respects existing and historical norms, while incorporating insight and classifications based on state-of-the-art findings. We consolidate and clarify existing terminology conventions, but do not aim to create new nomenclature. The presented nomenclature aims to balance adopting broad definitions that encourage flexibility and innovation in research approaches, against classification specificity that minimizes ambiguity about protocols but can hinder progress. Constructive research around tES classification, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), should allow some variations in protocol but also distinguish from approaches that bear so little resemblance that their safety and efficacy should not be compared directly. The proposed framework includes terms in contemporary use across peer-reviewed publications, including relatively new nomenclature introduced in the past decade, such as transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), as well as terms with long historical use such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We also define commonly used terms-of-the-trade including electrode, lead, anode, and cathode, whose prior use, in varied contexts, can also be a source of confusion. This comprehensive clarification of nomenclature and associated preliminary proposals for standardized terminology can support the development of consensus on efficacy, safety, and regulatory standards