Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37759918›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2023

Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation.

Zonghao Xin, Yoshifumi Abe, Akihiro Kuwahata, Kenji F Tanaka, Masaki Sekino

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zonghao XinDepartment of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan.
Yoshifumi AbeDivision of Brain Sciences, Institute for Advanced Medical Research, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
Akihiro KuwahataDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8579, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8578-5155
Kenji F TanakaDivision of Brain Sciences, Institute for Advanced Medical Research, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan.
Masaki SekinoDepartment of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan.
Keio University · JPThe University of Tokyo · JPTohoku University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Temporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamental mechanisms, and research has previously been restricted to numerical simulations and immunohistology without considering the acute in vivo response of the neural circuit. To address the characterization and understanding of the mechanisms underlying the approach, we investigated instantaneous brainwide activation patterns in response to invasive interferential current (IFC) stimulation compared with low-frequency alternative current stimulation (ACS). Results demonstrated that IFC stimulation is capable of inducing regional neural responses and modulating brain networks; however, the activation threshold for significantly recruiting a neural response using IFC was higher (at least twofold) than stimulation via alternating current, and the spatial distribution of the activation signal was restricted. A distinct blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) response pattern was observed, which could be accounted for by the activation of distinct types of cells, such as inhibitory cells, by IFC. These results suggest that IFC stimulation might not be as efficient as conventional brain modulation methods, especially when considering TI stimulation as a potential alternative for stimulating subcortical brain areas. Therefore, we argue that a future transcranial application of TI on human subjects should take these implications into account and consider other stimulation effects using this technique.

Indexed as

alternating current stimulationfMRIinterferential current stimulationtemporal interference

Identifiers

PMID37759918
PMCPMC10526916
OpenAlexW4386742180

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.