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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xin, Zonghao, Abe, Yoshifumi, Kuwahata, Akihiro, Tanaka, Kenji F., Sekino, Masaki
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