Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Jan 24:8:2.
doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002. eCollection 2014.

Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be)

Affiliations
Review

Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be)

Jared C Horvath et al. Front Syst Neurosci. .

Abstract

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory device often publicized for its ability to enhance cognitive and behavioral performance. These enhancement claims, however, are predicated upon electrophysiological evidence and descriptions which are far from conclusive. In fact, a review of the literature reveals a number of important experimental and technical issues inherent with this device that are simply not being discussed in any meaningful manner. In this paper, we will consider five of these topics. The first, inter-subject variability, explores the extensive between- and within-group differences found within the tDCS literature and highlights the need to properly examine stimulatory response at the individual level. The second, intra-subject reliability, reviews the lack of data concerning tDCS response reliability over time and emphasizes the importance of this knowledge for appropriate stimulatory application. The third, sham stimulation and blinding, draws attention to the importance (yet relative lack) of proper control and blinding practices in the tDCS literature. The fourth, motor and cognitive interference, highlights the often overlooked body of research that suggests typical behaviors and cognitions undertaken during or following tDCS can impair or abolish the effects of stimulation. Finally, the fifth, electric current influences, underscores several largely ignored variables (such as hair thickness and electrode attachments methods) influential to tDCS electric current density and flow. Through this paper, we hope to increase awareness and start an ongoing dialog of these important issues which speak to the efficacy, reliability, and mechanistic foundations of tDCS.

Keywords: efficacy; mechanisms of action; reliability; transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); variability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Under typical conditions, one will be able to build an electric circuit using two saline soaked tDCS sponges placed on a piece of clean skin. (B) When a piece of non-conductive plastic is placed underneath one electrode, the circuit will be broken. (C) When a small hole is cut in the plastic and a small stream of saline is used to connect the skin under the hole to the electrode, the circuit will be re-built. This demonstrates that, even if a tDCS electrode is not in contact with the scalp, excessive saline can be used to bridge between the electrode and the skin. Unfortunately, with excessive saline, determining the location of the circuit connection and electrical density at this point is extremely difficult.

References

    1. Ahdab R., Ayache S. S., Brugieres P., Goujon C., Lefaucheur J. P. (2010). Comparison of “standard” and “navigated” procedures of TMS coil positioning over motor, premotor and prefrontal targets in patients with chronic pain and depression. Clin. Neurophysiol. 40, 27–36 10.1016/j.neucli.2010.01.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alonzo A., Brassil J., Taylor J. L., Martin D., Loo C. K. (2012). Daily transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) leads to greater increases in cortical excitability than second daily transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 5, 208–213 10.1016/j.brs.2011.04.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ambrus G. G., Al-Moyed H., Chaieb L., Sarp L., Antal A., Paulus W. (2012). The fade-in–short stimulation–fade out approach to sham tDCS–reliable at 1 mA for naive and experienced subjects, but not investigators. Brain Stimul. 5, 499–504 10.1016/j.brs.2011.12.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antal A., Terney D., Poreisz C., Paulus W. (2007). Towards unravelling task−related modulations of neuroplastic changes induced in the human motor cortex. Eur. J. Neurosci. 26, 2687–2691 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05896.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bastani A., Jaberzadeh S. (2013a). a-tDCS differential modulation of corticospinal excitability: the effects of electrode size. Brain Stimul. 6, 932–937 10.1016/j.brs.2013.04.005 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources