Cargando…
Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation
Temporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamenta...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10526916/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37759918 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13091317 |
_version_ | 1785111095916101632 |
---|---|
author | Xin, Zonghao Abe, Yoshifumi Kuwahata, Akihiro Tanaka, Kenji F. Sekino, Masaki |
author_facet | Xin, Zonghao Abe, Yoshifumi Kuwahata, Akihiro Tanaka, Kenji F. Sekino, Masaki |
author_sort | Xin, Zonghao |
collection | PubMed |
description | Temporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamental mechanisms, and research has previously been restricted to numerical simulations and immunohistology without considering the acute in vivo response of the neural circuit. To address the characterization and understanding of the mechanisms underlying the approach, we investigated instantaneous brainwide activation patterns in response to invasive interferential current (IFC) stimulation compared with low-frequency alternative current stimulation (ACS). Results demonstrated that IFC stimulation is capable of inducing regional neural responses and modulating brain networks; however, the activation threshold for significantly recruiting a neural response using IFC was higher (at least twofold) than stimulation via alternating current, and the spatial distribution of the activation signal was restricted. A distinct blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) response pattern was observed, which could be accounted for by the activation of distinct types of cells, such as inhibitory cells, by IFC. These results suggest that IFC stimulation might not be as efficient as conventional brain modulation methods, especially when considering TI stimulation as a potential alternative for stimulating subcortical brain areas. Therefore, we argue that a future transcranial application of TI on human subjects should take these implications into account and consider other stimulation effects using this technique. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10526916 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105269162023-09-28 Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation Xin, Zonghao Abe, Yoshifumi Kuwahata, Akihiro Tanaka, Kenji F. Sekino, Masaki Brain Sci Article Temporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamental mechanisms, and research has previously been restricted to numerical simulations and immunohistology without considering the acute in vivo response of the neural circuit. To address the characterization and understanding of the mechanisms underlying the approach, we investigated instantaneous brainwide activation patterns in response to invasive interferential current (IFC) stimulation compared with low-frequency alternative current stimulation (ACS). Results demonstrated that IFC stimulation is capable of inducing regional neural responses and modulating brain networks; however, the activation threshold for significantly recruiting a neural response using IFC was higher (at least twofold) than stimulation via alternating current, and the spatial distribution of the activation signal was restricted. A distinct blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) response pattern was observed, which could be accounted for by the activation of distinct types of cells, such as inhibitory cells, by IFC. These results suggest that IFC stimulation might not be as efficient as conventional brain modulation methods, especially when considering TI stimulation as a potential alternative for stimulating subcortical brain areas. Therefore, we argue that a future transcranial application of TI on human subjects should take these implications into account and consider other stimulation effects using this technique. MDPI 2023-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10526916/ /pubmed/37759918 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13091317 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Xin, Zonghao Abe, Yoshifumi Kuwahata, Akihiro Tanaka, Kenji F. Sekino, Masaki Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
title | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
title_full | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
title_fullStr | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
title_full_unstemmed | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
title_short | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
title_sort | brain response to interferential current compared with alternating current stimulation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10526916/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37759918 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13091317 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xinzonghao brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT abeyoshifumi brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT kuwahataakihiro brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT tanakakenjif brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT sekinomasaki brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation |