Cited by 279Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Widespread modulation of cerebral perfusion induced during and after transcranial direct current stimulation applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Open access
Stagg, C. J., Lin, R. L., Mezue, M., Segerdahl, A., Kong, Y., Xie, J., Tracey, I.·2013·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Noninvasive neuromodulatory techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are attracting increasing interest as potential therapies for a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions. When targeted to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anodal, facilitatory tDCS has been shown to improve symptoms in a range of domains including working memory, mood, and pain perception (Boggio et al., 2008a; Dockery et al., 2009; Kalu et al., 2012). However, the mechanisms underlying these promising behavioral effects are not well understood. Here, we investigated brain perfusion changes, as assessed using whole-brain arterial spin labeling (ASL), during tDCS applied to the left DLPFC in healthy humans. We demonstrated increased perfusion in regions closely anatomically connected to the DLPFC during anodal tDCS in conjunction with a decreased functional coupling between the left DLPFC and the thalami bilaterally. Despite highly similar effects on cortical excitability during and after stimulation (Nitsche and Paulus, 2000, 2001), cortical perfusion changes were markedly different during these two time periods, with widespread decreases in cortical perfusion being demonstrated after both anodal and cathodal tDCS compared to the period during stimulation. These findings may at least partially explain the different effects on behavior in these time periods described previously in the motor system (Stagg et al., 2011). In addition, the data presented here provide mechanistic explanations for the behavioral effects of anodal tDCS applied to the left DLPFC in terms of modulating functional connectivity between the DLPFC and thalami, as has been hypothesized previously (Lorenz et al., 2003).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.3887-12.2013

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Changes in cortical excitability and improvements in behavior induced by tDCS have been reported to persist long after the stimulation period.

    “Importantly, changes in cortical excitability and improvements in behavior induced by tDCS have been reported to persist long after the stimulation period [25–28].”

    From Primary outcome from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): A tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Introduction reports behavioral aftereffects lasting at least three months, supporting the claim that behavioral effects can persist well beyond stimulation. The Discussion and “Brain perfusion changes after stimulation” section report cortical-excitability changes in the immediate poststimulation period, but do not establish that those changes persist long after stimulation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stagg, C. J., Lin, R. L., Mezue, M., Segerdahl, A., Kong, Y., Xie, J., & Tracey, I.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2013-07-10
Volume
33
Issue
28
Pages
11425-11431
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2077726842
Cited by
279
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7
FWCI
13.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (83259)
  • Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, cerebral perfusion, arterial spin labeling, functional connectivity, thalamus, anodal stimulation, cathodal stimulation, cortical excitability, neuromodulation mechanisms
MeSH terms
Adult, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Prefrontal Cortex, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

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