4.6 Article

No effect of anodal tDCS on motor cortical excitability and no evidence for responders in a large double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Journal

BRAIN STIMULATION
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 100-109

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2020.11.005

Keywords

tDCS; BDNF; Responders; Cortical excitability; Variability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to test the effect of anodal tDCS on cortical excitability and the interaction effect of participant-specific factors, but did not find a main effect of anodal tDCS or interaction effect of the predictors. The study suggests that anodal tDCS at 2 mA for 20 min may not reliably affect cortical excitability.
Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has emerged as a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. Most studies show that anodal tDCS increases cortical excitability. However, this effect has been found to be highly variable. Objective: To test the effect of anodal tDCS on cortical excitability and the interaction effect of two participant-specific factors that may explain individual differences in sensitivity to anodal tDCS: the Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor Val66Met polymorphism (BDNF genotype) and the latency difference between anterior-posterior and lateromedial TMS pulses (APLM latency). Methods: In 62 healthy participants, cortical excitability over the left motor cortex was measured before and after anodal tDCS at 2 mA for 20 min in a pre-registered, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial with repeated measures. Results: We did not find a main effect of anodal tDCS, nor an interaction effect of the participant-specific predictors. Moreover, further analyses did not provide evidence for the existence of responders and non responders. Conclusion: This study indicates that anodal tDCS at 2 mA for 20 min may not reliably affect cortical excitability. (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available