Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27693941›Full record

ReviewClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology2016

Animal models of transcranial direct current stimulation: Methods and mechanisms.

Mark P Jackson, Asif Rahman, Belen Lafon, Gregory Kronberg, Doris Ling, Lucas C Parra, Marom Bikson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

150 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and feasible in hyperacute ischemic stroke (DICAST-SF trial).Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mark P JacksonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA.
Asif RahmanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA.
Belen LafonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA.
Gregory KronbergDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA.
Doris LingDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA.
Lucas C ParraDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA.
Marom BiksonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: bikson@ccny.cuny.edu.

Funding

Effects of direct-current stimulation on synaptic plasticityR01NS095123 · NINDS · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI PARRA, LUCAS C · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
CRCNS: Effects of Weak Applied Currents on Memory Consolidation During SleepR01MH092926 · NIMH · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI PARRA, LUCAS C · 2010 to 2014
$618k
Modulation of blood-brain-barrier (BBB) permeability by tDCS relevant electric fiR21EB017510 · NIBIB · CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK · PI BIKSON, MAROM · 2014 to 2015
$421k
NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB017510NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH092926NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS095123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review is to summarize the contribution of animal research using direct current stimulation (DCS) to our understanding of the physiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We comprehensively address experimental methodology in animal studies, broadly classified as: (1) transcranial stimulation; (2) direct cortical stimulation in vivo and (3) in vitro models. In each case advantages and disadvantages for translational research are discussed including dose translation and the overarching "quasi-uniform" assumption, which underpins translational relevance in all animal models of tDCS. Terminology such as anode, cathode, inward current, outward current, current density, electric field, and uniform are defined. Though we put key animal experiments spanning decades in perspective, our goal is not simply an exhaustive cataloging of relevant animal studies, but rather to put them in context of ongoing efforts to improve tDCS. Cellular targets, including excitatory neuronal somas, dendrites, axons, interneurons, glial cells, and endothelial cells are considered. We emphasize neurons are always depolarized and hyperpolarized such that effects of DCS on neuronal excitability can only be evaluated within subcellular regions of the neuron. Findings from animal studies on the effects of DCS on plasticity (LTP/LTD) and network oscillations are reviewed extensively. Any endogenous phenomena dependent on membrane potential changes are, in theory, susceptible to modulation by DCS. The relevance of morphological changes (galvanotropy) to tDCS is also considered, as we suggest microscopic migration of axon terminals or dendritic spines may be relevant during tDCS. A majority of clinical studies using tDCS employ a simplistic dose strategy where excitability is singularly increased or decreased under the anode and cathode, respectively. We discuss how this strategy, itself based on classic animal studies, cannot account for the complexity of normal and pathological brain function, and how recent studies have already indicated more sophisticated approaches are necessary. One tDCS theory regarding "functional targeting" suggests the specificity of tDCS effects are possible by modulating ongoing function (plasticity). Use of animal models of disease are summarized including pain, movement disorders, stroke, and epilepsy.

Indexed as

Models, AnimalAnimalsHumansLong-Term PotentiationMembrane PotentialsNerve NetNeuronal PlasticitySynapsesTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAnimal modelsGalvanotropyLong term potentiationNoninvasive brain stimulationOscillationsSynaptic plasticityTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27693941
PMCPMC5083183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.