4.6 Review

The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2015.00181

关键词

transcranial direct current stimulation; interindividual variability; transcranial magnetic stimulation; cognition; motor-evoked potential

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Clinical Training Research Fellowship (UK)
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26.119]
  3. Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences [13021041]
  4. MEXT [14029038]
  5. JSPS KAKENHI [26120008]
  6. Health and Labor Sciences Research Grants
  7. Intramural Research Grant for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders of National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Japan
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26120008] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been an explosion of research using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for investigating and modulating human cognitive and motor function in healthy populations. It has also been used in many studies seeking to improve deficits in disease populations. With the slew of studies reporting promising results for everything from motor recovery after stroke to boosting memory function, one could be easily seduced by the idea of tDCS being the next panacea for all neurological ills. However, huge variability exists in the reported effects of tDCS, with great variability in the effect sizes and even contradictory results reported. In this review, we consider the interindividual factors that may contribute to this variability. In particular, we discuss the importance of baseline neuronal state and features, anatomy, age and the inherent variability in the injured brain. We additionally consider how interindividual variability affects the results of motor-evoked potential (MEP) testing with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which, in turn, can lead to apparent variability in response to tDCS in motor studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据