Cargando…

Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor

BACKGROUND: Classically, studies adopting non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation have placed greater importance on the position of the primary “stimulating” electrode than the secondary “reference” electrode. However, recent current density modeling suggests that ascribing a neutral role t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mehta, Arpan R., Pogosyan, Alek, Brown, Peter, Brittain, John-Stuart
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4319690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25499037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.003
_version_ 1782355990728933376
author Mehta, Arpan R.
Pogosyan, Alek
Brown, Peter
Brittain, John-Stuart
author_facet Mehta, Arpan R.
Pogosyan, Alek
Brown, Peter
Brittain, John-Stuart
author_sort Mehta, Arpan R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Classically, studies adopting non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation have placed greater importance on the position of the primary “stimulating” electrode than the secondary “reference” electrode. However, recent current density modeling suggests that ascribing a neutral role to the reference electrode may prove an inappropriate oversimplification. HYPOTHESIS: We set out to test the hypothesis that the behavioral effects of transcranial electrical stimulation are critically dependent on the position of the return (“reference”) electrode. METHODS: We examined the effect of transcranial alternating current stimulation (sinusoidal waveform with no direct current offset at a peak-to-peak amplitude of 2000 μA and a frequency matched to each participant's peak tremor frequency) on physiological tremor in a group of healthy volunteers (N = 12). We implemented a sham-controlled experimental protocol where the position of the stimulating electrode remained fixed, overlying primary motor cortex, whilst the position of the return electrode varied between two cephalic (fronto-orbital and contralateral primary motor cortex) and two extracephalic (ipsilateral and contralateral shoulder) locations. We additionally controlled for the role of phosphenes in influencing motor output by assessing the response of tremor to photic stimulation, through self-reported phosphene ratings. RESULTS: Altering only the position of the return electrode had a profound behavioral effect: only the montage with extracephalic return contralateral to the primary stimulating electrode significantly entrained physiological tremor (15.9% ± 6.1% increase in phase stability, 1 S.E.M.). Photic stimulation also entrained tremor (11.7% ± 5.1% increase in phase stability). Furthermore, the effects of electrical stimulation are distinct from those produced from direct phosphene induction, in that the latter were only seen with the fronto-orbital montage that did not affect the tremor. CONCLUSION: The behavioral effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation appear to be critically dependent on the position of the reference electrode, highlighting the importance of electrode montage when designing experimental and therapeutic protocols.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4319690
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43196902015-04-26 Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor Mehta, Arpan R. Pogosyan, Alek Brown, Peter Brittain, John-Stuart Brain Stimul Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)/Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) BACKGROUND: Classically, studies adopting non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation have placed greater importance on the position of the primary “stimulating” electrode than the secondary “reference” electrode. However, recent current density modeling suggests that ascribing a neutral role to the reference electrode may prove an inappropriate oversimplification. HYPOTHESIS: We set out to test the hypothesis that the behavioral effects of transcranial electrical stimulation are critically dependent on the position of the return (“reference”) electrode. METHODS: We examined the effect of transcranial alternating current stimulation (sinusoidal waveform with no direct current offset at a peak-to-peak amplitude of 2000 μA and a frequency matched to each participant's peak tremor frequency) on physiological tremor in a group of healthy volunteers (N = 12). We implemented a sham-controlled experimental protocol where the position of the stimulating electrode remained fixed, overlying primary motor cortex, whilst the position of the return electrode varied between two cephalic (fronto-orbital and contralateral primary motor cortex) and two extracephalic (ipsilateral and contralateral shoulder) locations. We additionally controlled for the role of phosphenes in influencing motor output by assessing the response of tremor to photic stimulation, through self-reported phosphene ratings. RESULTS: Altering only the position of the return electrode had a profound behavioral effect: only the montage with extracephalic return contralateral to the primary stimulating electrode significantly entrained physiological tremor (15.9% ± 6.1% increase in phase stability, 1 S.E.M.). Photic stimulation also entrained tremor (11.7% ± 5.1% increase in phase stability). Furthermore, the effects of electrical stimulation are distinct from those produced from direct phosphene induction, in that the latter were only seen with the fronto-orbital montage that did not affect the tremor. CONCLUSION: The behavioral effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation appear to be critically dependent on the position of the reference electrode, highlighting the importance of electrode montage when designing experimental and therapeutic protocols. Elsevier 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4319690/ /pubmed/25499037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.003 Text en © 2015 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
spellingShingle Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)/Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS)
Mehta, Arpan R.
Pogosyan, Alek
Brown, Peter
Brittain, John-Stuart
Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor
title Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor
title_full Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor
title_fullStr Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor
title_full_unstemmed Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor
title_short Montage Matters: The Influence of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Human Physiological Tremor
title_sort montage matters: the influence of transcranial alternating current stimulation on human physiological tremor
topic Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)/Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4319690/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25499037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.003
work_keys_str_mv AT mehtaarpanr montagematterstheinfluenceoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulationonhumanphysiologicaltremor
AT pogosyanalek montagematterstheinfluenceoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulationonhumanphysiologicaltremor
AT brownpeter montagematterstheinfluenceoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulationonhumanphysiologicaltremor
AT brittainjohnstuart montagematterstheinfluenceoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulationonhumanphysiologicaltremor