International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020).

Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice

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

Targeting location relates to treatment response in active but not sham rTMS stimulation.

BackgroundPrecise targeting of brain functional networks is believed critical for treatment efficacy of rTMS (repetitive pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) in treatment resistant major depression.ObjectiveTo use imaging data from a "failed" clinical trial of rTMS in Veterans to test whether treatment response was associated with rTMS coil location in active but not sham stimulation, and compare fMRI functional connectivity between those stimulation locations.MethodsAn imaging substudy of 49 Veterans (mean age, 56 years; range, 27-78 years; 39 male) from a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial of rTMS treatment, grouping participants by clinical response, followed by group comparisons of treatment locations identified by individualized fiducial markers on structural MRI and resting state fMRI derived networks.ResultsThe average stimulation location for responders versus nonresponders differed in the active but not in the sham condition (P = .02). The average responder location derived from the active condition showed significant negative functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate (P < .001) while the nonresponder location did not (P = .17), a finding replicated in independent cohorts of 84 depressed and 35 neurotypical participants. The responder and nonresponder stimulation locations evoked different seed based networks (FDR corrected clusters, all P < .03), revealing additional brain regions related to rTMS treatment outcome.ConclusionThese results provide evidence from a randomized controlled trial that clinical response to rTMS is related to accuracy in targeting the region within DLPFC that is negatively correlated with subgenual cingulate. These results support the validity of a neuro-functionally informed rTMS therapy target in Veterans