Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39677408›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

The safety and efficacy of applying a high-current temporal interference electrical stimulation in humans.

Yan Wang, Ginger Qinghong Zeng, Mengmeng Wang, Mingsong Zhang, Chuangchuang Chang, Qiongwei Liu, Keqing Wang, Ru Ma, Ying Wang, Xiaochu Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Yan Wang *School of Mental Health, Bengbu Medical University, Bengbu, China.
Ginger Qinghong Zeng *Application Technology Center of Physical Therapy to Brain Disorders, Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Mengmeng WangSchool of Mental Health, Bengbu Medical University, Bengbu, China.
Mingsong ZhangDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Chuangchuang ChangDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Qiongwei LiuDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Keqing WangDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Ru MaDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Ying WangDivision of Life Science and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Xiaochu ZhangSchool of Mental Health, Bengbu Medical University, Bengbu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Temporal interference electrical stimulation (TI) is promise in targeting deep brain regions focally. However, limited electric field intensity challenges its efficacy. Objective: This study aimed to introduce a high-current TI electrical stimulation protocol to enhance its intensity and evaluate its safety and efficacy when applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) in the human brain. Methods: Safety assessments included a battery of biochemical and neuropsychological tests (NSE, MoCA, PPT, VAMS-R, and SAS measurements), 5-min resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) recordings before and after 30-min high-current TI electrical stimulation sessions (20 Hz, 70 Hz, sham). Adverse reactions were also documented post-stimulation. Efficacy evaluations involved two motor tasks, the simple reaction time (SRT) task and the one-increment task, to investigate the distinct contributions of beta (20 Hz) and gamma (70 Hz) oscillations to motor functions. Results: Biochemical and neuropsychological tests revealed no significant differences between the groups. Additionally, no epileptic activities were detected in the EEG recordings. In the one-increment task, 20 Hz stimulation delayed participants' reaction time compared to the 70 Hz and sham groups. Conversely, in the SRT task, 70 Hz stimulation exhibited a tendency to enhance participants' performance relative to the sham group. Conclusion: The proposed high-current TI electrical stimulation is both safe and effective for stimulating the human brain. Moreover, the distinct effects observed in motor tasks underscore the dissociative roles of beta and gamma oscillations in motor functions, offering valuable insights into the potential applications of high-current TI electrical stimulation in brain stimulation research.

Indexed as

efficacyhigh-current TI electrical stimulationmotor functionnoninvasive brain stimulationsafetytranscranial electrical stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39677408
PMCPMC11638170

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.