Cited by 175Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurological disorders and treatments

Titrating the neuroplastic effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex

Mosayebi Samani, Mohsen, Agboada, Desmond, Jamil, Asif, Kuo, Min-Fang, Nitsche, Michael A.·2019·Cortex

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) non-invasively induces polarity-dependent excitability alterations in the human motor cortex lasting for more than an hour after stimulation. Clinical applications with encouraging results have been reported in several pilot studies, but the optimal stimulation protocols remain to be determined. This is also important because the efficacy and directionality of tDCS effects follow non-linear rules regarding neuroplastic effects for the stimulation parameters duration and intensity. In this study, we systemically explored the association between tDCS, these parameters and induced after-effects on motor cortex excitability. Cathodal tDCS was applied in four different intensities (sham, 1, 2 and 3 mA) and three durations (15, 20 and 30 mins) in 16 young healthy subjects and the after-effects were monitored with TMS-induced motor evoked potentials (MEP) until the next day evening after stimulation. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA conducted to disentangle the effects of tDCS intensity and duration show a main effect of intensity in which 1 mA and 3 mA stimulation induced a reduction of MEP amplitudes, but 2 mA resulted in excitability enhancement. The results of a secondary ANOVA conducted to compare if active stimulation effects differ from those of sham stimulation revealed a significant main effect of tDCS condition in which 1 mA-15 min, 1 mA-30 min and 3 mA-20 min cathodal tDCS induced LTD-like plasticity, while LTP-like…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.04.016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 51 · Cited by 175

Authors
Mosayebi Samani, M., Agboada, D., Jamil, A., Kuo, M.-F., & Nitsche, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (DE)
  • BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Nitsche, Michael A.
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
119
Pages
350-361
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944770398
Cited by
175
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 7
FWCI
10.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, cathodal tDCS, primary motor cortex, neuroplasticity, motor cortex excitability, stimulation intensity, stimulation duration, long-term potentiation, long-term depression, motor evoked potentials, aftereffects, stimulation protocol optimization
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Neuronal Plasticity, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Neurosurgical Procedures, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review