"Unfocus" on foc.us: commercial tDCS headset impairs working memory

Non-invasive brain stimulation for patients and healthy subjects: Current challenges and future perspectives

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have a rich historical background, yet their utilization has witnessed significant growth only recently. These techniques encompass transcranial electrical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation, which were initially employed in neuroscience to explore the intricate relationship between the brain and behaviour. However, they are increasingly finding application in research contexts as a means to address various neurological, psychiatric, and neurodegenerative disorders. This article aims to fulfill two primary objectives. Firstly, it seeks to showcase the current state of the art in the clinical application of NIBS, highlighting how it can improve and complement existing treatments. Secondly, it provides a comprehensive overview of the utilization of NIBS in augmenting the brain function of healthy individuals, thereby enhancing their performance. Furthermore, the article delves into the points of convergence and divergence between these two techniques. It also addresses the existing challenges and future prospects associated with NIBS from ethical and research standpoints.

The Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on the Cognitive Functions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Previous studies have investigated the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive functions. However, these studies reported inconsistent results due to differences in experiment design, measurements, and stimulation parameters. Nonetheless, there is a lack of meta-analyses and review studies on tDCS and its impact on cognitive functions, including working memory, inhibition, flexibility, and theory of mind. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS studies published from the earliest available data up to October 2021, including studies reporting the effects of tDCS on cognitive functions in human populations. Therefore, these systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively analyze the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS on cognitive functions by investigating 69 articles with a total of 5545 participants. Our study reveals significant anodal tDCS effects on various cognitive functions. Specifically, we observed improvements in working memory reaction time (RT), inhibition RT, flexibility RT, theory of mind RT, working memory accuracy, theory of mind accuracy and flexibility accuracy. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate noteworthy cathodal tDCS effects, enhancing working memory accuracy, inhibition accuracy, flexibility RT, flexibility accuracy, theory of mind RT, and theory of mind accuracy. Notably, regarding the influence of stimulation parameters of tDCS on cognitive functions, the results indicated significant differences across various aspects, including the timing of stimulation (online vs. offline studies), population type (clinical vs. healthy studies), stimulation duration (< 15 min vs. > 15 min), electrical current intensities (1-1.5 m.A vs. > 1.5 m.A), stimulation sites (right frontal vs. left frontal studies), age groups (young vs. older studies), and different cognitive tasks in each cognitive functioning aspect. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that tDCS can effectively enhance cognitive task performance, offering valuable insights into the potential benefits of this method for cognitive improvement.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

Intervention is a better predictor of tDCS mind-wandering effects than subjective beliefs about experimental results

Blinding in non-invasive brain stimulation research is a topic of intense debate, especially regarding the efficacy of sham-controlled methods for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). A common approach to assess blinding success is the inclusion of correct guess rate. However, this method cannot provide insight into the effect of unblinding on observed stimulation outcomes. Thus, the implementation of measures to systematically evaluate subjective expectation regarding stimulation is needed. Previous work evaluated subjective effects in an earlier study which reported a mind-wandering and tDCS data set and concluded that subjective belief drove the pattern of results observed. Here we consider the subjective and objective intervention effects in a key contrast from that data set-2 mA vs. sham-which was not examined in the reanalysis. In addition, we examine another key contrast from a different tDCS mind-wandering study that employed similar methodology. Our findings support objective intervention as the strongest predictor of the observed effects of mind-wandering in both re-analyses, over and above that of subjective intervention. However, it is important to control for and understand the possible inadequacies of sham-controlled methods.

Electric Field Strength From Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Determines Degree of Working Memory Response: A Potential Application of Reverse-Calculation Modeling?

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for working memory is an enticing treatment, but there is mixed evidence to date.

OBJECTIVES

We tested the effects of electric field strength from uniform 2 mA dosing on working memory change from prestimulation to poststimulation. Second, we statistically evaluated a reverse-calculation method of individualizing tDCS dose and its effect on normalizing electric field at the cortex.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed electric field modeling on a data set of 28 healthy older adults (15 women, mean age = 73.7, SD = 7.3) who received ten sessions of active 2 mA tDCS (N = 14) or sham tDCS (N = 14) applied over bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC) in a triple-blind design. We evaluated the relationship between electric field strength and working memory change on an N-back task in conditions of above-median, high electric field from active 2 mA (N = 7), below-median, low electric field from active 2 mA (N = 7), and sham (N = 14) at regions of interest (ROI) at the left and right DLPFC. We then determined the individualized reverse-calculation dose to produce the group average electric field and measured the electric field variance between uniform 2 mA doses vs individualized reverse-calculation doses at the same ROIs.

RESULTS

Working memory improvements from pre- to post-tDCS were significant for the above-median electric field from active 2 mA condition at the left DLPFC (mixed ANOVA, p = 0.013). Furthermore, reverse-calculation modeling significantly reduced electric field variance at both ROIs (Levene's test; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher electric fields at the left DLPFC from uniform 2 mA doses appear to drive working memory improvements from tDCS. Individualized doses from reverse-calculation modeling significantly reduce electric field variance at the cortex. Taken together, using reverse-calculation modeling to produce the same, high electric fields at the cortex across participants may produce more effective future tDCS treatments for working memory.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement

•

The available data frame with a wide parameter space of tES does not allow an overarching protocol recommendation.

•

Established engineering risk-management procedures with regard to manufacturing should be followed.

•

Consensus among experts is that tES for neuroenhancement is safe as long as tested protocols are followed.

Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans.

Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject’s age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be “safe” where they are applying stimulation beyond that examined in published studies that also investigated potential side effects.

Brain stimulation devices marketed for consumer use are distinct from medical devices because they do not make medical claims and are therefore not necessarily subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices (i.e., by government agencies tasked with regulating medical devices). Manufacturers must follow ethical and best practices in marketing tES stimulators, including not misleading users by referencing effects from human trials using devices and protocols not similar to theirs.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

Epidural stimulation of the motor cortex (eMCS) was devised in the 1990's, and has now largely supplanted thalamic stimulation for neuropathic pain relief. Its mechanisms of action involve activation of multiple cortico-subcortical areas initiated in the thalamus, with involvement of endogenous opioids and descending inhibition toward the spinal cord. Evidence for clinical efficacy is now supported by at least seven RCTs; benefits may persist up to 10 years, and can be reasonably predicted by preoperative use of non-invasive repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS first developed as a means of predicting the efficacy of epidural procedures, then as an analgesic method on its own right. Reasonable evidence from at least six well-conducted RCTs favors a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain (NP), and less consistently in widespread/fibromyalgic pain. Stimulation of the dorsolateral frontal cortex (DLPFC) has not proven efficacious for pain, so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is a new and attractive target but evidence remains inconsistent. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is applied upon similar targets as rTMS and eMCS; it does not elicit action potentials but modulates the neuronal resting membrane state. tDCS presents practical advantages including low cost, few safety issues, and possibility of home-based protocols; however, the limited quality of most published reports entails a low level of evidence. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS, and in both cases repeated sessions over a long time may be required to achieve clinically significant relief. Both invasive and non-invasive procedures exert their effects through multiple distributed brain networks influencing the sensory, affective and cognitive aspects of chronic pain. Their effects are mainly exerted upon abnormally sensitized pathways, rather than on acute physiological pain. Extending the duration of long-term benefits remains a challenge, for which different strategies are discussed in this review.

Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) research has been plagued with inconsistent effects. Recent work has suggested neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variability may alter tES efficacy. However, direct evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We have previously replicated effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on improving multitasking ability in young adults. Here, we attempt to assess whether these stimulation parameters have comparable effects in older adults (aged 60-80 years), which is a population known to have greater variability in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. It is hypothesized that this variability in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology will be predictive of tACS efficacy.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered study where tACS was applied above the prefrontal cortex (between electrodes F3-F4) while participants were engaged in multitasking. Participants were randomized to receive either 6-Hz (theta) tACS for 26.67 min daily for three days (80 min total; Long Exposure Theta group), 6-Hz tACS for 5.33 min daily (16-min total; Short Exposure Theta group), or 1-Hz tACS for 26.67 min (80 min total; Control group). To account for neuroanatomy, magnetic resonance imaging data was used to form individualized models of the tACS-induced electric field (EF) within the brain. To account for neurophysiology, electroencephalography data was used to identify individual peak theta frequency.

RESULTS

Results indicated that only in the Long Theta group, performance change was correlated with modeled EF and peak theta frequency. Together, modeled EF and peak theta frequency accounted for 54%-65% of the variance in tACS-related performance improvements, which sustained for a month.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate the importance of individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology in tACS research and help account for inconsistent effects across studies.

Viability of tDCS in Military Environments for Performance Enhancement: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) as a method of cognitive enhancement in both diseased and healthy individuals has gained popularity. Its potential for enhancing cognition in healthy individuals has gained the interest of the military. However, before it being implemented into military training or operational settings, further work is needed to determine its efficacy and safety. Although a considerable amount of literature exists, few studies have specifically evaluated its use in enhancing cognition relative to operational, military tasks. Therefore, in a first step to evaluate its efficacy, we completed a systematic literature review of studies using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a type of tES, to enhance cognitive processes in healthy individuals.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify literature published between 2008 and 2018 that used a method of tES for cognitive enhancement. As part of a larger literature review effort, 282 articles were initially retrieved. These were then screened to identify articles meeting predetermined criteria, to include those using various methods of tES, resulting in 44 articles. Next, the articles were screened for those using tDCS or high-definition tDCS, resulting in 34 articles for review and information extraction.

RESULTS

Of the 34 articles reviewed, 28 reported some degree of enhancement (eg, improved accuracy on tasks and reduced reaction times). Areas of cognitive enhancements included executive functioning, creativity/cognitive flexibility, attention/perception, decision-making, memory, and working memory. However, the precise outcomes of enhancement varied given the range in tasks that were used to assess the constructs. Additionally, the stimulation parameters in terms of intensity applied, duration of stimulation, and brain region targeted for stimulation varied.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions to be drawn from this systematic literature review include the identification of a brain region for targeting with stimulation to enhance a broad range of cognitive constructs applicable to military tasks, as well as stimulation parameters for duration and intensity. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was most frequently targeted in the studies that found enhanced performance across several cognitive constructs. Stimulation intensities of 2 mA and durations of 20 minutes or longer appeared frequently as well. Although several parameters were identified, further work is required before this type of technology can be recommended for operational use.

The effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on executive functioning in healthy controls: A systematic review and meta-analysis

In recent years, there has been a heightened interest in the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on executive functioning. However, there is no comprehensive overview of its effects on different executive functioning domains in healthy individuals. Here, we assessed the state of the field by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation (i.e. repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation) over prefrontal regions on tasks assessing working memory, inhibition, flexibility, planning and initiation performance. Our search yielded 63 studies (n = 1537), and the effectiveness of excitatory and inhibitory non-invasive brain stimulation were assessed per executive functioning task. Our analyses showed that excitatory non-invasive brain stimulation had a small but positive effect on Stop Signal Task and Go/No-Go Task performance, and that inhibitory stimulation had a small negative effect on Flanker Task performance. Non-invasive brain stimulation did not affect performance on working memory and flexibility tasks, and effects on planning tasks were inconclusive.

Noninvasive brain stimulation in children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could provide treatment alternatives to stimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), given some evidence for improvements in cognition and clinical symptoms. However, despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS and tDCS are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically appraise rTMS and tDCS studies in ADHD to inform good research and clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic search (up to February 2019) identified 18 studies (rTMS 4, tDCS 14; 311 children and adults with ADHD) stimulating mainly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). We included 12 anodal tDCS studies (232 children and adults with ADHD) in 3 random-effects meta-analyses of cognitive measures of attention, inhibition and processing speed.

RESULTS

The review of rTMS and tDCS showed positive effects in some functions but not others, and little evidence for clinical improvement. The meta-analyses of 1 to 5 sessions of anodal tDCS over mainly the left or bilateral dlPFC showed trend-level improvements in inhibition and processing speed, but not in attention.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, patient age and outcome measures limited the interpretation of findings.

CONCLUSION

The review and meta-analysis showed limited evidence that 1 to 5 sessions of rTMS and tDCS, mostly of the dlPFC, improved clinical or cognitive measures of ADHD. These findings did not support using rTMS or tDCS of the dlPFC as an alternative neurotherapy for ADHD as yet. Larger, multi-session stimulation studies identifying more optimal sites and stimulation parameters in combination with cognitive training could achieve larger effects.

Transcranial direct current stimulation: A review of electrode characteristics and materials

Electrode characteristics are crucial in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) since electrode design and placement determine the cortical area being modulated, current density and spatial resolution of stimulation. Early research on tDCS sought to determine optimal parameters for stimulation by specifying maximum current, duration and sizes of electrodes. Further research focused on determining efficient ways to deliver stimulation to targeted regions on the cortex with minimal discomfort to the user by altering electrode size, placement, shape and material. This review aims to give an insight on the main characteristics of electrodes used in tDCS and on the variability found in electrode parameters and placements from tDCS to high definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) applications and beyond.

Can a Soldier Say No to an Enhancing Intervention?

Technological advancements have provided militaries with the possibility to enhance human performance and to provide soldiers with better warfighting capabilities. Though these technologies hold significant potential, their use is not without cost to the individual. This paper explores the complexities associated with using human cognitive enhancements in the military, focusing on how the purpose and context of these technologies could potentially undermine a soldier’s ability to say no to these interventions. We focus on cognitive enhancements and their ability to also enhance a soldier’s autonomy (i.e., autonomy-enhancing technologies). Through this lens, we explore situations that could potentially compel a soldier to accept such technologies and how this acceptance could impact rights to individual autonomy and informed consent within the military. In this examination, we highlight the contextual elements of vulnerability—institutional and differential vulnerability. In addition, we focus on scenarios in which a soldier’s right to say no to such enhancements can be diminished given the special nature of their work and the significance of making better moral decisions. We propose that though in some situations, a soldier may be compelled to accept said enhancements; with their right to say no diminished, it is not a blanket rule, and safeguards ought to be in place to ensure that autonomy and informed consent are not overridden.

Dimensions of Ethical Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnologies

The direct-to-consumer (DTC) neurotechnology market, which includes some brain-computer interfaces, neurostimulation devices, virtual reality systems, wearables, and smartphone apps is rapidly growing. Given this technology's intimate relationship with the brain, a number of ethical dimensions must be addressed so that the technology can achieve the goal of contributing to human flourishing. This paper identifies safety, transparency, privacy, epistemic appropriateness, existential authenticity, just distribution, and oversight as such dimensions. After an initial exploration of the relevant ethical foundations for DTC neurotechnologies, this paper lays out each dimension and uses examples to justify its inclusion.

Placebo Brain Stimulation Affects Subjective but Not Neurocognitive Measures of Error Processing

The aim of this preregistered EEG study was to show how expectations about enhanced or impaired performance through transcranial stimulation affect feelings of agency and error processing. Using a single-blind experimental design, participants (N = 57) were attached to a transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) device, and in different blocks, they were verbally instructed to expect enhanced or impaired cognitive performance, or no effects of the brain stimulation. In all cases, but unbeknownst to the participants, we used an inert sham tDCS protocol. Subsequently, we measured their response to errors on a cognitive control task. Our expectancy manipulation was successful: participants reported improved subjective performance in the enhancement compared with the impairment condition—even though objective performance was kept at a constant level across conditions. Participants reported the highest feelings of agency over their task performance in the control condition, and lowest feelings of agency in the impairment condition. The expectancy manipulation did not affect the error-related negativity (ERN) in association with incorrect responses. During the induction phase, expecting impaired versus enhanced performance increased frontal theta power, potentially reflecting a process of increased cognitive control allocation. Our findings show that verbally induced manipulations can affect subjective performance on a cognitive control task, but that stronger manipulations (e.g., through conditioning) are necessary to induce top-down effects on neural error processing.

Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement: Modafinil as the example of a workplace drug?

The use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals has been a feature for much of recorded history. Cocaine and amphetamine are modern cases of drugs initially enthusiastically acclaimed for enhancing cognition and mood. Today, an increasing number of healthy people are reported to use cognitive-enhancing drugs, as well as other interventions, such as non-invasive brain stimulation, to maintain or improve work performance. Cognitive-enhancing drugs, such as methylphenidate and modafinil, which were developed as treatments, are increasingly being used by healthy people. Modafinil not only affects ‘cold’ cognition, but also improves ‘hot’ cognition, such as emotion recognition and task-related motivation. The lifestyle use of ‘smart drugs’ raises both safety concerns as well as ethical issues, including coercion and increasing disparity in society. As a society, we need to consider which forms of cognitive enhancement (e.g. pharmacological, exercise, lifelong learning) are acceptable and for which groups under what conditions and by what methods we would wish to improve and flourish.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Psychiatry: What Psychiatrists Need to Know

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is emerging as a potential treatment for a host of neuropsychiatric disorders. Data appear to indicate that tDCS applied over frontal or prefrontal brain regions may reduce symptoms of major depression, yet results have been mixed. Early studies showed promise, but recent work failed to replicate earlier results. The decision whether to use tDCS is further affected by the complex regulatory environment; no tDCS devices are cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for clinical use. Older systems have grandfathered regulatory approval for treating mood, anxiety, and insomnia, although they have not demonstrated efficacy in rigorous trials. Furthermore, as the field of noninvasive brain stimulation advances, various side effects and contraindications are increasingly recognized. Over the last few years, research and consumer use of tDCS have outpaced education, thus providing little guidance for clinicians and trainees about how to understand tDCS. Therefore, this focused review includes those items psychiatric clinicians and trainees most need to understand tDCS, including basic electrical and neurophysiological principles, a brief review of efficacy data in major depressive disorder, and suggested guidelines about how to manage patients using tDCS.

At-Home Cortical Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: a Feasibility Study with Initial Clinical Results

The clinical use of noninvasive cortical stimulation procedures is hampered by the limited duration of the analgesic effects and the need to perform stimulation in hospital settings. Here, we tested the feasibility and pilot efficacy of an internet-based system for at-home, long-duration, medically controlled transcranial motor cortex stimulation (H-tDCS), via a double-blinded, sham-controlled trial in patients with neuropathic pain refractory to standard-of-care drug therapy. Each patient was first trained at hospital, received a stimulation kit, allotted a password-protected Web space, and completed daily tDCS sessions during 5 weeks, via a Bluetooth connection between stimulator and a minilaptop. Each session was validated and internet-controlled by hospital personnel. Daily pain ratings were obtained during 11 consecutive weeks, and afterwards via iterative visits/phone contacts. Twenty full procedures were completed in 12 consecutive patients (500 daily tDCS sessions, including 20% sham). No serious adverse effects were recorded. Superficial burning at electrode position occurred in 2 patients, and nausea/headache in two others, all of whom wished to pursue stimulation. Six out of the 12 patients achieved satisfactory relief on a scale combining pain scores, drug intake, and quality of life. Daily pain reports correlated with such combined assessment, and differentiated responders from nonresponders without overlap. Clinical improvement in responders could last up to 6 months. Five patients asked to repeat the whole procedure when pain resumed again, with comparable results. At-home, long-duration tDCS proved safe and technically feasible, and provided long-lasting relief in 50% of a small sample of patients with drug-resistant neuropathic pain.

Hacking the Brain: Dimensions of Cognitive Enhancement

In an increasingly complex information society, demands for cognitive functioning are growing steadily. In recent years, numerous strategies to augment brain function have been proposed. Evidence for their efficacy (or lack thereof) and side effects has prompted discussions about ethical, societal, and medical implications. In the public debate, cognitive enhancement is often seen as a monolithic phenomenon. On a closer look, however, cognitive enhancement turns out to be a multifaceted concept: There is not one cognitive enhancer that augments brain function per se, but a great variety of interventions that can be clustered into biochemical, physical, and behavioral enhancement strategies. These cognitive enhancers differ in their mode of action, the cognitive domain they target, the time scale they work on, their availability and side effects, and how they differentially affect different groups of subjects. Here we disentangle the dimensions of cognitive enhancement, review prominent examples of cognitive enhancers that differ across these dimensions, and thereby provide a framework for both theoretical discussions and empirical research.

Cognitive Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Healthy and Clinical Populations: An Overview

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory approach that is affordable, safe, and well tolerated. This review article summarizes the research and clinically relevant findings from meta-analyses and studies investigating the cognitive effects of tDCS in healthy and clinical populations. We recapitulate findings from recent studies where cognitive performance paired with tDCS was compared with performance under placebo (sham stimulation) in single sessions and longitudinal designs where cognitive effects were evaluated following repeated sessions. In summary, the tDCS literature currently indicates that the effects of tDCS on cognitive measures are less robust and less predictable compared with the more consistent effects on motor outcomes. There is also a notable difference in the consistency of single-session and longitudinal designs. In single-session tDCS designs, there are small effects amid high variability confounded by individual differences and potential sham stimulation effects. In contrast, longitudinal studies provide more consistent benefits in healthy and clinical populations, particularly when tDCS is paired with a concurrent task. Yet, these studies are few in number, thereby impeding design optimization. While there is good evidence that tDCS can modulate cognitive functioning and potentially produce longer-term benefits, a major challenge to widespread translation of tDCS is the absence of a complete mechanistic account for observed effects. Significant future work is needed to identify a priori responders from nonresponders for every cognitive task and tDCS protocol.

Did I Do That? Expectancy Effects of Brain Stimulation on Error-related Negativity and Sense of Agency

This study examines the effects of expected transcranial stimulation on the error(-related) negativity (Ne or ERN) and the sense of agency in participants who perform a cognitive control task. Placebo transcranial direct current stimulation was used to elicit expectations of transcranially induced cognitive improvement or impairment. The improvement/impairment manipulation affected both the Ne/ERN and the sense of agency (i.e., whether participants attributed errors to oneself or the brain stimulation device): Expected improvement increased the ERN in response to errors compared with both impairment and control conditions. Expected impairment made participants falsely attribute errors to the transcranial stimulation. This decrease in sense of agency was correlated with a reduced ERN amplitude. These results show that expectations about transcranial stimulation impact users' neural response to self-generated errors and the attribution of responsibility-especially when actions lead to negative outcomes. We discuss our findings in relation to predictive processing theory according to which the effect of prior expectations on the ERN reflects the brain's attempt to generate predictive models of incoming information. By demonstrating that induced expectations about transcranial stimulation can have effects at a neural level, that is, beyond mere demand characteristics, our findings highlight the potential for placebo brain stimulation as a promising tool for research.

Primum non nocere or primum facere meliorem? Hacking the brain in the 21st century

Abstract Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that modulates cortical excitability. It is devoid of serious adverse events and exerts variable effects on cognition, with several research findings suggesting that it can improve memory, verbal and mathematical skills. Because tDCS devices are low-cost, portable and relatively easy to assemble, they have become available outside of the medical setting and used for non-medical (“cosmetic”) purposes by laypersons. In this sense, tDCS has become a popular technique aiming to improve cognition and the achievement of a better performance not only at work, but also in other fields such as sports, leisure activities (video games) and even the military. In spite of these unforeseen developments, there has been a general paralysis of the medical and regulatory agencies to develop guidelines for the use of tDCS for cosmetic purposes. Several challenges are present, most importantly, how to restrict tDCS use outside of the medical setting in face of variable and sometimes conflicting results from scientific research. This article aims to describe the popular use of tDCS, in light of the pillars of neuroethics, a branch of bioethics relative to brain research. Between two possible but extreme solutions – total release or total restriction of tDCS – it is paramount to develop a spectrum of alternatives, which may vary over time and in different cultural backgrounds.

The Illusion of the Perfect Brain Enhancer

Many questions loom over transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive form of neurostimulation in which constant, low current is delivered directly to areas of the brain using small electrodes. It was first established in neuroscience research in the 1950s and 60s, but has seen rapid growth, particularly in the last five years. Originally developed to help patients with brain injuries such as strokes, tDCS is now also used to enhance language and mathematical ability, attention span, problem solving, memory, coordination, and even gaming skills. The authors examine its potential and pitfalls.

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

Low-Intensity Transcranial Current Stimulation in Psychiatry

Neurostimulation is rapidly emerging as an important treatment modality for psychiatric disorders. One of the fastest-growing and least-regulated approaches to noninvasive therapeutic stimulation involves the application of weak electrical currents. Widespread enthusiasm for low-intensity transcranial electrical current stimulation (tCS) is reflected by the recent surge in direct-to-consumer device marketing, do-it-yourself enthusiasm, and an escalating number of clinical trials. In the wake of this rapid growth, clinicians may lack sufficient information about tCS to inform their clinical practices. Interpretation of tCS clinical trial data is aided by familiarity with basic neurophysiological principles, potential mechanisms of action of tCS, and the complicated regulatory history governing tCS devices. A growing literature includes randomized controlled trials of tCS for major depression, schizophrenia, cognitive disorders, and substance use disorders. The relative ease of use and abundant access to tCS may represent a broad-reaching and important advance for future mental health care. Evidence supports application of one type of tCS, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for major depression. However, tDCS devices do not have regulatory approval for treating medical disorders, evidence is largely inconclusive for other therapeutic areas, and their use is associated with some physical and psychiatric risks. One unexpected finding to arise from this review is that the use of cranial electrotherapy stimulation devices-the only category of tCS devices cleared for use in psychiatric disorders-is supported by low-quality evidence.

Frontoparietal neurostimulation modulates working memory training benefits and oscillatory synchronization

There is considerable interest in maintaining working memory (WM) because it is essential to accomplish most cognitive tasks, and it is correlated with fluid intelligence and ecologically valid measures of daily living. Toward this end, WM training protocols aim to improve WM capacity and extend improvements to unpracticed domains, yet success is limited. One emerging approach is to couple WM training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). This pairing of WM training with tDCS in longitudinal designs promotes behavioral improvement and evidence of transfer of performance gains to untrained WM tasks. However, the mechanism(s) underlying tDCS-linked training benefits remain unclear. Our goal was to gain purchase on this question by recording high-density EEG before and after a weeklong WM training+tDCS study. Participants completed four sessions of frontoparietal tDCS (active anodal or sham) during which they performed a visuospatial WM change detection task. Participants who received active anodal tDCS demonstrated significant improvement on the WM task, unlike those who received sham stimulation. Importantly, this pattern was mirrored by neural correlates in spectral and phase synchrony analyses of the HD-EEG data. Notably, the behavioral interaction was echoed by interactions in frontal-posterior alpha band power, and theta and low alpha oscillations. These findings indicate that one mechanism by which paired tDCS+WM training operates is to enhance cortical efficiency and connectivity in task-relevant networks.

tDCS for Memory Enhancement: Analysis of the Speculative Aspects of Ethical Issues

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising technology to enhance cognitive and physical performance. One of the major areas of interest is the enhancement of memory function in healthy individuals. The early arrival of tDCS on the market for lifestyle uses and cognitive enhancement purposes lead to the voicing of some important ethical concerns, especially because, to date, there are no official guidelines or evaluation procedures to tackle these issues. The aim of this article is to review ethical issues related to uses of tDCS for memory enhancement found in the ethics and neuroscience literature and to evaluate how realistic and scientifically well-founded these concerns are? In order to evaluate how plausible or speculative each issue is, we applied the methodological framework described by Racine et al. (2014) for “informed and reflective” speculation in bioethics. This framework could be succinctly presented as requiring: (1) the explicit acknowledgment of factual assumptions and identification of the value attributed to them; (2) the validation of these assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and (3) the adoption of a broad perspective to support more comprehensive reflection on normative issues. We identified four major considerations associated with the development of tDCS for memory enhancement: safety, autonomy, justice and authenticity. In order to assess the seriousness and likelihood of harm related to each of these concerns, we analyzed the assumptions underlying the ethical issues, and the level of evidence for each of them. We identified seven distinct assumptions: prevalence, social acceptance, efficacy, ideological stance (bioconservative vs. libertarian), potential for misuse, long term side effects, and the delivery of complete and clear information. We conclude that ethical discussion about memory enhancement via tDCS sometimes involves undue speculation, and closer attention to scientific and social facts would bring a more nuanced analysis. At this time, the most realistic concerns are related to safety and violation of users’ autonomy by a breach of informed consent, as potential immediate and long-term health risks to private users remain unknown or not well defined. Clear and complete information about these risks must be provided to research participants and consumers of tDCS products or related services. Broader public education initiatives and warnings would also be worthwhile to reach those who are constructing their own tDCS devices.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.

Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016

This review updates and consolidates evidence on the safety of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Safety is here operationally defined by, and limited to, the absence of evidence for a Serious Adverse Effect, the criteria for which are rigorously defined. This review adopts an evidence-based approach, based on an aggregation of experience from human trials, taking care not to confuse speculation on potential hazards or lack of data to refute such speculation with evidence for risk. Safety data from animal tests for tissue damage are reviewed with systematic consideration of translation to humans. Arbitrary safety considerations are avoided. Computational models are used to relate dose to brain exposure in humans and animals. We review relevant dose-response curves and dose metrics (e.g. current, duration, current density, charge, charge density) for meaningful safety standards. Special consideration is given to theoretically vulnerable populations including children and the elderly, subjects with mood disorders, epilepsy, stroke, implants, and home users. Evidence from relevant animal models indicates that brain injury by Direct Current Stimulation (DCS) occurs at predicted brain current densities (6.3-13 A/m(2)) that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by conventional tDCS. To date, the use of conventional tDCS protocols in human trials (≤40 min, ≤4 milliamperes, ≤7.2 Coulombs) has not produced any reports of a Serious Adverse Effect or irreversible injury across over 33,200 sessions and 1000 subjects with repeated sessions. This includes a wide variety of subjects, including persons from potentially vulnerable populations.

Drugs, games, and devices for enhancing cognition: implications for work and society

As work environments change, the demands on working people change. Cognitive abilities in particular are becoming progressively more important for work performance and successful competition in a global environment. However, work-related stress, performance over long hours, lack of sleep, shift work, and jet lag affect cognitive functions. Therefore, an increasing number of healthy people are reported to use cognitive-enhancing drugs, as well as other interventions, such as noninvasive brain stimulation, to maintain or improve work performance. This review summarizes research on pharmacological and technical methods as well as cognitive training, including game apps for the brain, in healthy people. In neuropsychiatric disorders, impairments in cognitive functions can drastically reduce the chances of returning to work; therefore, this review also summarizes findings from pharmacological and cognitive-training studies in neuropsychiatric disorders.

Emotional Distraction and Bodily Reaction: Modulation of Autonomous Responses by Anodal tDCS to the Prefrontal Cortex

Prefrontal electric stimulation has been demonstrated to effectively modulate cognitive processing. Specifically, the amelioration of cognitive control (CC) over emotional distraction by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) points toward targeted therapeutic applications in various psychiatric disorders. In addition to behavioral measures, autonomous nervous system (ANS) responses are fundamental bodily signatures of emotional information processing. However, interactions between the modulation of CC by tDCS and ANS responses have received limited attention. We here report on ANS data gathered in healthy subjects that performed an emotional CC task parallel to the modulation of left prefrontal cortical activity by 1 mA anodal or sham tDCS. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) to negative and neutral pictures of human scenes were reduced by anodal as compared to sham tDCS. Individual SCR amplitude variations were associated with the amount of distraction. Moreover, the stimulation-driven performance- and SCR-modulations were related in form of a quadratic, inverse-U function. Thus, our results indicate that non-invasive brain stimulation (i.e., anodal tDCS) can modulate autonomous responses synchronous to behavioral improvements, but the range of possible concurrent improvements from prefrontal stimulation is limited. Interactions between cognitive, affective, neurophysiological, and vegetative responses to emotional content can shape brain stimulation effectiveness and require theory-driven integration in potential treatment protocols.