Compromised neuroplasticity in cigarette smokers under nicotine withdrawal is restituted by the nicotinic α4β2-receptor partial agonist varenicline

Nicotine modulates neuroplasticity and improves cognitive functions in animals and humans. In the brain of smoking individuals, calcium-dependent plasticity induced by non-invasive brain stimulation methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and paired associative stimulation (PAS) is impaired by nicotine withdrawal, but partially re-established after nicotine re-administration. In order to investigate the underlying mechanism further, we tested the impact of the α4β2-nicotinic receptor partial agonist varenicline on focal and non-focal plasticity in smokers during nicotine withdrawal, induced by PAS and tDCS, respectively. We administered low (0.3 mg) and high (1.0 mg) single doses of varenicline or placebo medication before stimulation over the left motor cortex of 20 healthy smokers under nicotine withdrawal. Motor cortex excitability was monitored by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potential amplitudes for 36 hours after plasticity induction. Stimulation-induced plasticity was absent under placebo medication, whereas it was present in all conditions under high dose. Low dose restituted only tDCS-induced non-focal plasticity, producing no significant impact on focal plasticity. High dose varenicline also prolonged inhibitory plasticity. These results are comparable to the impact of nicotine on withdrawal-related impaired plasticity in smokers and suggest that α4β2 nicotinic receptors are relevantly involved in plasticity deficits and restitution in smokers

No interaction between tDCS current strength and baseline performance: a conceptual replication

Several recent studies have reported non-linear effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been attributed to an interaction between the stimulation parameters (e.g., current strength, duration) and the neural state of the cortex being stimulated (e.g., indexed by baseline performance ability, age) (see Fertonani and Miniussi, 2016). We have recently described one such non-linear interaction between current strength and baseline performance on a visuospatial attention (landmark) task (Benwell et al., 2015). In this previous study, we induced a small overall rightward shift of spatial attention across 38 participants using bi-hemispheric tDCS applied for 20 min (concurrent left posterior parietal (P5) anode and right posterior parietal (P6) cathode) relative to a sham protocol. Importantly, this shift in bias was driven by a state-dependent interaction between current intensity and the discrimination sensitivity of the participant at baseline (pre-stimulation) for the landmark task. Individuals with high discrimination sensitivity (HDS) shifted rightward in response to low- (1 mA) but not high-intensity (2 mA) tDCS, whereas individuals with low discrimination sensitivity (LDS) shifted rightward with high- but not low-intensity stimulation. However, in Benwell et al. (2015) current strength was applied as a between-groups factor, where half of the participants received 1 mA and half received 2 mA tDCS, thus we were unable to compare high and low-intensity tDCS directly within each individual. Here we aimed to replicate these findings using a within-group design. Thirty young adults received 15 min of 1 and 2 mA tDCS, and a sham protocol, each on different days, to test the concept of an interaction between baseline performance and current strength. We found no overall rightward shift of spatial attention with either current strength, and no interaction between performance and current strength. These results provide further evidence of low replicability of non-invasive brain stimulation protocols, and the need for further attempts to replicate the key experimental findings within this field

Long-term effects of cerebellar anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyeblink responses

Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been reported to enhance the acquisition of conditioned eyeblink responses (CR), a form of associative motor learning. The aim of the present study was to determine possible long-term effects of cerebellar tDCS on the acquisition and extinction of CRs. Delay eyeblink conditioning was performed in 40 young and healthy human participants. On day 1, 100 paired CS (conditioned stimulus)–US (unconditioned stimulus) trials were applied. During the first 50 paired CS–US trials, 20 participants received anodal cerebellar tDCS, and 20 participants received sham stimulation. On days 2, 8 and 29, 50 paired CS–US trials were applied, followed by 30 CS-only extinction trials on day 29. CR acquisition was not significantly different between anodal and sham groups. During extinction, CR incidences were significantly reduced in the anodal group compared to sham, indicating reduced retention. In the anodal group, learning related increase of CR magnitude tended to be reduced, and timing of CRs tended to be delayed. The present data do not confirm previous findings of enhanced acquisition of CRs induced by anodal cerebellar tDCS. Rather, the present findings suggest a detrimental effect of anodal cerebellar tDCS on CR retention and possibly CR performance

No Interaction between tDCS Current Strength and Baseline Performance:A Conceptual Replication

Several recent studies have reported non-linear effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been attributed to an interaction between the stimulation parameters (e.g., current strength, duration) and the neural state of the cortex being stimulated (e.g., indexed by baseline performance ability, age) (see Fertonani and Miniussi, 2016). We have recently described one such non-linear interaction between current strength and baseline performance on a visuospatial attention (landmark) task (Benwell et al., 2015). In this previous study, we induced a small overall rightward shift of spatial attention across 38 participants using bi-hemispheric tDCS applied for 20 min (concurrent left posterior parietal (P5) anode and right posterior parietal (P6) cathode) relative to a sham protocol. Importantly, this shift in bias was driven by a state-dependent interaction between current intensity and the discrimination sensitivity of the participant at baseline (pre-stimulation) for the landmark task. Individuals with high discrimination sensitivity (HDS) shifted rightward in response to low- (1 mA) but not high-intensity (2 mA) tDCS, whereas individuals with low discrimination sensitivity (LDS) shifted rightward with high- but not low-intensity stimulation. However, in Benwell et al. (2015) current strength was applied as a between-groups factor, where half of the participants received 1 mA and half received 2 mA tDCS, thus we were unable to compare high and low-intensity tDCS directly within each individual. Here we aimed to replicate these findings using a within-group design. Thirty young adults received 15 min of 1 and 2 mA tDCS, and a sham protocol, each on different days, to test the concept of an interaction between baseline performance and current strength. We found no overall rightward shift of spatial attention with either current strength, and no interaction between performance and current strength. These results provide further evidence of low replicability of non-invasive brain stimulation protocols, and the need for further attempts to replicate the key experimental findings within this field

Non-linear effects of transcranial direct current stimulation as a function of individual baseline performance:Evidence from biparietal tDCS influence on lateralized attention bias

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a well-established technique for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). However, the technique suffers from a high variability in outcome, some of which is likely explained by the state of the brain at tDCS-delivery but for which explanatory, mechanistic models are lacking. Here, we tested the effects of bi-parietal tDCS on perceptual line bisection as a function of tDCS current strength (1 mA vs 2 mA) and individual baseline discrimination sensitivity (a measure associated with intrinsic uncertainty/signal-to-noise balance). Our main findings were threefold. We replicated a previous finding (Giglia et al., 2011) of a rightward shift in subjective midpoint after Left anode/Right cathode tDCS over parietal cortex (sham-controlled). We found this effect to be weak over our entire sample (n = 38), but to be substantial in a subset of participants when they were split according to tDCS-intensity and baseline performance. This was due to a complex, nonlinear interaction between these two factors. Our data lend further support to the notion of state-dependency in NIBS which suggests outcome to depend on the endogenous balance between task-informative ‘signal’ and task-uninformative ‘noise’ at baseline. The results highlight the strong influence of individual differences and variations in experimental parameters on tDCS outcome, and the importance of fostering knowledge on the factors influencing tDCS outcome across cognitive domains

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulation of picture naming and word reading:A meta-analysis of single session tDCS applied to healthy participants

Recent reviews quantifying the effects of single sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (or tDCS) in healthy volunteers find only minor effects on cognition despite the popularity of this technique. Here, we wanted to quantify the effects of tDCS on language production tasks that measure word reading and picture naming. We reviewed 14 papers measuring tDCS effects across a total of 96 conditions to a) quantify effects of conventional stimulation on language regions (i.e., left hemisphere anodal tDCS administered to temporal/frontal areas) under normal conditions or under conditions of cognitive (semantic) interference; b) identify parameters which may moderate the size of the tDCS effect within conventional stimulation protocols (e.g., online vs offline, high vs. low current densities, and short vs. long durations), as well as within types of stimulation not typically explored by previous reviews (i.e., right hemisphere anodal tDCS or left/right hemisphere cathodal tDCS). In all analyses there was no significant effect of tDCS, but we did find a small but significant effect of time and duration of stimulation with stronger effects for offline stimulation and for shorter durations (< 15 min). We also found some indication of publication bias towards reporting positive effects. We encourage further experimentation in order resolve the disparity between the current popularity of tDCS and its poor efficacy in healthy participants

Preconditioning tDCS facilitates subsequent tDCS effect on skill acquisition in older adults.

Functional motor declines that often occur with advancing age-including reduced efficacy to learn new skills-can have a substantial impact on the quality of life. Recent studies using noninvasive brain stimulation indicate that priming the corticospinal system by lowering the threshold for the induction of long-term potentiation-like plasticity before skill training may facilitate subsequent skill learning. Here, we used "priming" protocol, in which we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applying the cathode over the primary motor cortex (M1) before the anode placed over M1 during unimanual isometric force control training (FORCEtraining). Older individuals who received tDCS with the cathode placed over M1 before tDCS with the anode placed over M1 concurrent with FORCEtraining showed greater skill improvement and corticospinal excitability increases following the tDCS/FORCEtraining protocol compared with both young and older individuals who did not receive the preceding tDCS with the cathode placed over M1. The results suggested that priming tDCS protocols may be used in clinical settings to improve motor function and thus maintain the functional independence of older adults

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): A Beginner's Guide for Design and Implementation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a popular brain stimulation method that is used to modulate cortical excitability, producing facilitatory or inhibitory effects upon a variety of behaviors. There is, however, a current lack of consensus between studies, with many results suggesting that polarity-specific effects are difficult to obtain. This article explores some of these differences and highlights the experimental parameters that may underlie their occurrence. We provide a general, practical snapshot of tDCS methodology, including what it is used for, how to use it, and considerations for designing an effective and safe experiment. Our aim is to equip researchers who are new to tDCS with the essential knowledge so that they can make informed and well-rounded decisions when designing and running successful experiments. By summarizing the varied approaches, stimulation parameters, and outcomes, this article should help inform future tDCS research in a variety of fields

Inconsistent effects of parietal α-tACS on Pseudoneglect across two experiments:A failed internal replication

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is being investigated as an experimental and clinical interventional technique in human participants. While promising, important limitations have been identified, including weak effect sizes and high inter- and intra-individual variability of outcomes. Here, we compared two “inhibitory” tES-techniques with supposedly different mechanisms of action as to their effects on performance in a visuospatial attention task, and report on a direct replication attempt. In two experiments, 2 × 20 healthy participants underwent tES in three separate sessions testing different protocols (10 min stimulation each) with a montage targeting right parietal cortex (right parietal–left frontal, electrode-sizes: 3cm × 3cm–7 cm × 5 cm), while performing a perceptual line bisection (landmark) task. The tES-protocols were compared as to their ability to modulate pseudoneglect (thought to be under right hemispheric control). In experiment 1, sham-tES was compared to transcranial alternating current stimulation at alpha frequency (10 Hz; α-tACS) (expected to entrain “inhibitory” alpha oscillations) and to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) (shown to suppress neuronal spiking activity). In experiment 2, we attempted to replicate the findings of experiment 1, and establish frequency-specificity by adding a 45 Hz-tACS condition to α-tACS and sham. In experiment 1, right parietal α-tACS led to the expected changes in spatial attention bias, namely a rightward shift in subjective midpoint estimation (relative to sham). However, this was not confirmed in experiment 2 and in the complete sample. Right parietal c-tDCS and 45 Hz-tACS had no effect. These results highlight the importance of replication studies, adequate statistical power and optimizing tES-interventions for establishing the robustness and reliability of electrical stimulation effects, and best practice