Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31860160›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2020

Current intensity- and polarity-specific online and aftereffects of transcranial direct current stimulation: An fMRI study.

Asif Jamil, Giorgi Batsikadze, Hsiao-I Kuo, Raf L J Meesen, Peter Dechent, Walter Paulus, Michael A Nitsche

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Asif JamilDepartment Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3497-675X
Giorgi BatsikadzeDepartment of Neurology, Essen University Hospital, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Hsiao-I KuoDepartment Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany.
Raf L J MeesenREVAL Research Institute, University of Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium.
Peter DechentDepartment of Cognitive Neurology, University Medical Center, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Walter PaulusDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Michael A NitscheDepartment Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany.
TU Dortmund University · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DEEssen University Hospital · DEHasselt University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induces polarity- and dose-dependent neuroplastic aftereffects on cortical excitability and cortical activity, as demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and functional imaging (fMRI) studies. However, lacking systematic comparative studies between stimulation-induced changes in cortical excitability obtained from TMS, and cortical neurovascular activity obtained from fMRI, prevent the extrapolation of respective physiological and mechanistic bases. We investigated polarity- and intensity-dependent effects of tDCS on cerebral blood flow (CBF) using resting-state arterial spin labeling (ASL-MRI), and compared the respective changes to TMS-induced cortical excitability (amplitudes of motor evoked potentials, MEP) in separate sessions within the same subjects (n = 29). Fifteen minutes of sham, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0-mA anodal or cathodal tDCS was applied over the left primary motor cortex (M1) in a randomized repeated-measure design. Time-course changes were measured before, during and intermittently up to 120-min after stimulation. ROI analyses indicated linear intensity- and polarity-dependent tDCS after-effects: all anodal-M1 intensities increased CBF under the M1 electrode, with 2.0-mA increasing CBF the greatest (15.3%) compared to sham, while all cathodal-M1 intensities decreased left M1 CBF from baseline, with 2.0-mA decreasing the greatest (-9.3%) from sham after 120-min. The spatial distribution of perfusion changes correlated with the predicted electric field, as simulated with finite element modeling. Moreover, tDCS-induced excitability changes correlated more strongly with perfusion changes in the left sensorimotor region compared to the targeted hand-knob region. Our findings reveal lasting tDCS-induced alterations in cerebral perfusion, which are dose-dependent with tDCS parameters, but only partially account for excitability changes.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAdultBrain MappingCerebral CortexCerebrovascular CirculationElectrodesElectromagnetic FieldsEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMotor CortexNeuronal PlasticityOnline SystemsSomatosensory CortexSpin Labelsarterial spin labelingcerebral blood flowcurrent intensityinter-individual variabilitymotor cortextranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31860160
PMCPMC7267945
OpenAlexW2996652152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.