Cargando…

Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation

BACKGROUND: While alternating current stimulation (ACS) is gaining relevance as a tool in research and approaching clinical applications, its mechanisms of action remain unclear. A review by Schutter and colleagues argues for a retinal origin of transcranial ACS’ neuromodulatory effects. Interesting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haberbosch, Linus, Datta, Abhishek, Thomas, Chris, Jooß, Andreas, Köhn, Arvid, Rönnefarth, Maria, Scholz, Michael, Brandt, Stephan A., Schmidt, Sein
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6692662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31440126
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00783
_version_ 1783443597103726592
author Haberbosch, Linus
Datta, Abhishek
Thomas, Chris
Jooß, Andreas
Köhn, Arvid
Rönnefarth, Maria
Scholz, Michael
Brandt, Stephan A.
Schmidt, Sein
author_facet Haberbosch, Linus
Datta, Abhishek
Thomas, Chris
Jooß, Andreas
Köhn, Arvid
Rönnefarth, Maria
Scholz, Michael
Brandt, Stephan A.
Schmidt, Sein
author_sort Haberbosch, Linus
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While alternating current stimulation (ACS) is gaining relevance as a tool in research and approaching clinical applications, its mechanisms of action remain unclear. A review by Schutter and colleagues argues for a retinal origin of transcranial ACS’ neuromodulatory effects. Interestingly, there is an alternative application form of ACS specifically targeting α-oscillations in the visual cortex via periorbital electrodes (retinofugal alternating current stimulation, rACS). To further compare these two methods and investigate retinal effects of ACS, we first aim to establish the safety and tolerability of rACS. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our research was to evaluate the safety of rACS via finite-element modeling, theoretical safety limits and subjective report. METHODS: 20 healthy subjects were stimulated with rACS as well as photic stimulation and reported adverse events following stimulation. We analyzed stimulation parameters at electrode level as well as distributed metric estimates from an ultra-high spatial resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived finite element human head model and compared them to existing safety limits. RESULTS: Topographical modeling revealed the highest current densities in the anterior visual pathway, particularly retina and optic nerve. Stimulation parameters and finite element modeling estimates of rACS were found to be well below existing safety limits. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Our findings are in line with existing safety guidelines for retinal and neural damage and establish the tolerability and feasibility of rACS. In comparison to tACS, retinofugal stimulation of the visual cortex provides an anatomically circumscribed model to systematically study the mechanisms of action of ACS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6692662
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66926622019-08-22 Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation Haberbosch, Linus Datta, Abhishek Thomas, Chris Jooß, Andreas Köhn, Arvid Rönnefarth, Maria Scholz, Michael Brandt, Stephan A. Schmidt, Sein Front Neurosci Neuroscience BACKGROUND: While alternating current stimulation (ACS) is gaining relevance as a tool in research and approaching clinical applications, its mechanisms of action remain unclear. A review by Schutter and colleagues argues for a retinal origin of transcranial ACS’ neuromodulatory effects. Interestingly, there is an alternative application form of ACS specifically targeting α-oscillations in the visual cortex via periorbital electrodes (retinofugal alternating current stimulation, rACS). To further compare these two methods and investigate retinal effects of ACS, we first aim to establish the safety and tolerability of rACS. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our research was to evaluate the safety of rACS via finite-element modeling, theoretical safety limits and subjective report. METHODS: 20 healthy subjects were stimulated with rACS as well as photic stimulation and reported adverse events following stimulation. We analyzed stimulation parameters at electrode level as well as distributed metric estimates from an ultra-high spatial resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived finite element human head model and compared them to existing safety limits. RESULTS: Topographical modeling revealed the highest current densities in the anterior visual pathway, particularly retina and optic nerve. Stimulation parameters and finite element modeling estimates of rACS were found to be well below existing safety limits. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Our findings are in line with existing safety guidelines for retinal and neural damage and establish the tolerability and feasibility of rACS. In comparison to tACS, retinofugal stimulation of the visual cortex provides an anatomically circumscribed model to systematically study the mechanisms of action of ACS. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6692662/ /pubmed/31440126 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00783 Text en Copyright © 2019 Haberbosch, Datta, Thomas, Jooß, Köhn, Rönnefarth, Scholz, Brandt and Schmidt. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Haberbosch, Linus
Datta, Abhishek
Thomas, Chris
Jooß, Andreas
Köhn, Arvid
Rönnefarth, Maria
Scholz, Michael
Brandt, Stephan A.
Schmidt, Sein
Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation
title Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation
title_full Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation
title_fullStr Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation
title_full_unstemmed Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation
title_short Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation
title_sort safety aspects, tolerability and modeling of retinofugal alternating current stimulation
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6692662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31440126
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00783
work_keys_str_mv AT haberboschlinus safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT dattaabhishek safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT thomaschris safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT jooßandreas safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT kohnarvid safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT ronnefarthmaria safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT scholzmichael safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT brandtstephana safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT schmidtsein safetyaspectstolerabilityandmodelingofretinofugalalternatingcurrentstimulation