Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:59:32.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Overview of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation: Basic Principles and Clinical Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2021

Amitabh Bhattacharya
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India
Kambhampati Mrudula
Affiliation:
Department of Neurophysiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India
Sai Sreevalli Sreepada
Affiliation:
Department of Neurophysiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India
Talakad Narsappa Sathyaprabha
Affiliation:
Department of Neurophysiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India
Pramod Kumar Pal
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India
Robert Chen
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Division of Brain, Imaging and Behaviour, Krembil Research Institute, University of Toronto, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Kaviraja Udupa*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurophysiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India
*
Correspondence to: Kaviraja Udupa, Department of Neurophysiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Hosur Road, Bengaluru, 560 029, India. Emails: kaviudupa@gmail.com; kaviudupa.nimhans@nic.in
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The brain has the innate ability to undergo neuronal plasticity, which refers to changes in its structure and functions in response to continued changes in the environment. Although these concepts are well established in animal slice preparation models, their application to a large number of human subjects could only be achieved using noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of plasticity induction using NIBS techniques including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), random noise stimulation (RNS), transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). We briefly introduce these techniques, explain the stimulation parameters and potential clinical implications. Although their mechanisms are different, all these NIBS techniques can be used to induce plasticity at the systems level, to examine the neurophysiology of brain circuits and have potential therapeutic use in psychiatric and neurological disorders. TMS is the most established technique for the treatment of brain disorders, and repetitive TMS is an approved treatment for medication-resistant depression. Although the data on the clinical utility of the other modes of stimulation are more limited, the electrical stimulation techniques (tDCS, tACS, RNS, VNS, GVS) have the advantage of lower cost, portability, applicability at home, and can readily be combined with training or rehabilitation. Further research is needed to expand the clinical utility of NIBS and test the combination of different modes of NIBS to optimize neuromodulation induced clinical benefits.

Résumé :

RÉSUMÉ :

Aperçu de la stimulation cérébrale non effractive : principes de base et applications cliniques.

Le cerveau est doté d’une plasticité neuronale innée, c’est-à-dire qu’il a la capacité de modifier sa structure ou ses fonctions en réaction aux changements continus qui se produisent dans l’environnement. Les concepts de la plasticité sont pratique courante dans les modèles de préparation de coupes de tissu animal, mais leur application à un grand nombre de sujets humains ne pourrait se réaliser qu’à l’aide de techniques de stimulation cérébrale non effractive (SCNE). Le présent article de synthèse portera ainsi sur les mécanismes d’induction de la plasticité par des techniques de SCNE, notamment la stimulation magnétique transcrânienne (SMT), la stimulation transcrânienne à courant continu (STCC), la stimulation transcrânienne à courant alternatif (STCA), la stimulation par bruit aléatoire (SBA), la stimulation transcrânienne par ultrasons (STU), la stimulation du nerf vague (SNV) et la stimulation vestibulaire galvanique (SVG). Après une brève introduction suivront des explications sur les paramètres de stimulation de ces techniques et leur potentiel d’application clinique. Bien que leurs mécanismes d’action soient différents, ces techniques de SCNE peuvent toutes induire une forme de plasticité au niveau des systèmes et permettre l’étude de la neurophysiologie des circuits dans le cerveau, en plus d’offrir un potentiel thérapeutique en psychiatrie et en neurologie. La SMT est la technique la plus utilisée dans le traitement des troubles cérébraux, et la SMT répétitive est une intervention approuvée dans le traitement de la dépression résistante aux médicaments. Il existe peu de données sur l’utilité clinique des autres modes de stimulation, mais les techniques de stimulation électrique (STCC, STCA, SBA, SNV, SVG) présentent différents avantages, dont un faible coût, la portabilité, l’applicabilité à domicile et la facilité d’utilisation associée à de la formation ou de la réadaptation. Aussi faudrait-il poursuivre la recherche pour élargir le champ d’application clinique de la SCNE et examiner différentes associations de mode de SCNE en vue de l’optimisation des bienfaits cliniques de la neuromodulation.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation

Introduction

Brain stimulation has become an exciting development in neurosciences to understand the concepts of plasticity and to treat various brain disorders. Brain stimulation can be broadly classified as invasive (e.g., deep brain stimulation [DBS]) and noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques. Although DBS plays a significant role in the treatment of several neurological and psychiatric disorders, it requires surgery and cannot be used in healthy subjects to understand brain physiology. Hence, in this narrative review, we discuss several NIBS techniques and their potential role in inducing as well as measuring brain plasticity. NIBS can broadly be classified as electrical, magnetic, or sonographic Reference Fomenko, Chen and Nankoo1 modes of stimulation. A representation of various modes of stimulation under these three subtypes is as depicted in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1: Different modes of noninvasive brain stimulation: GVS: Galvanic vestibular stimulation; tACS: transcranial alternating current stimulation; TBS: theta-burst stimulation; tDCS: transcranial direct current stimulation; TMS: transcranial magnetic stimulation; tRNS: transcranial random noise stimulation, TUS: transcranial ultrasound stimulation; VNS: vagal nerve stimulation.

Table 1: Key features of different modes of NIBS

GVS: galvanic vestibular stimulation; NIBS: noninvasive brain stimulation; TMS: transcranial magnetic stimulation; tACS: transcranial alternating current stimulation; tRNS: transcranial random noise stimulation; tDCS: transcranial direct current stimulation; taVNS: transcutaneous auricular vagal nerve stimulation.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)

Basics of TMS

TMS is a noninvasive neurophysiological technique of stimulating the brain through the intact skull. Reference Barker, Jalinous and Freeston2 It has been widely used to access changes in cortical excitability associated with neurological and psychiatric disorders due to its ability to identify subtle deficits in brain inhibition and excitation. Reference Rossini, Burke and Chen3

TMS and Cortical Excitability

Single-pulse TMS can assess cortical excitability using parameters such as the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs), resting or active motor thresholds (RMT/AMT: minimal intensity to generate small MEP of specific amplitude when the target muscle is at rest or active, respectively), the silent periods (silence in the electromyography activity following magnetic stimulation generated MEP during the active contraction of the muscle of interest), recruitment curves (input–output curve, greater cortical activation with increasing stimulation intensity), and mapping of muscle representation in motor homunculus in the motor cortex (Figure 2). Using paired-pulse TMS, several inhibitory and facilitatory intracortical circuits such as short-interval cortical inhibitions (SICIs) and intracortical facilitations (ICFs) can be measured. Reference Chen, Cros and Curra4,Reference Agrawal, Bhattacharya, Kamble, Yadav and Pal5

Figure 2: Schematic representation of the transcranial magnetic stimulation demonstrating the magnetic field generated with the magnetic coil placed over the hand area of the primary motor cortex. This, in turn, induces electrical current to activate cortical circuits (lightning bolts indicating the electromagnetic pulses) leading to activation of corticospinal neurons and subsequently and alpha motor neurons in the spinal cord that innervate the muscle of interest (first dorsal interosseous muscle). This leads to motor evoked potential recorded with surface electromyography.

Mechanistic Basis of TMS

A TMS device consists of a series of capacitors connected to a wire coil which has inductance as well as resistance. When a rapidly changing electrical current passes through a wire coil placed on the scalp, a changing magnetic field is generated which penetrates the cranium. This generates eddy currents which lead to action potentials in the neurons in the brain. Reference Rothwell6,Reference Mills7 The commonly used figure-of-eight coil is usually composed of two wires coiled side by side on the same plane passing currents in opposite directions. The figure-of-eight coil has better focality than other coils such as the circular coil because the point of maximum stimulation is at the junction of the two loops. Reference Ueno, Tashiro and Harada8 TMS administered over the motor cortex elicits a series of waves over corticospinal axons that can be recorded over the spinal cord, with the direct (D) wave followed by a series of indirect (I) waves. TMS at low intensities preferentially activates I waves which arises from the transsynaptic activation of corticospinal neurons and at higher intensities also evoke the D wave which represents direct stimulation of the corticospinal axon. Reference Terao and Ugawa9

Clinical Applications of Single and Paired TMS

TMS has been very helpful in diagnosing spinal cord compressions in patients with myelopathy. Central motor conduction time of the upper and lower limb correlated with the severity of cord compression with TMS having 100% sensitivity and 84.8% specificity. Reference Lo, Chan and Lim10 Patients with cerebellar impairment have increased RMT of the contralateral motor cortex. Reference Cruz-Martinez and Arpa11 In patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), RMT was found to be decreased in very rigid patients and AMT was increased in chronic bradykinetic patients. Reference Cantello, Gianelli, Bettucci, Civardi, De Angelis and Mutani12,Reference Ellaway, Davey, Maskill and Dick13 MT is reduced in patients with tics and obsessive compulsive disorder. Reference Greenberg, Ziemann and Corá-Locatelli14 One study showed that SICI was reduced in PD patients and levodopa partly normalized this impaired inhibition. Reference Ridding, Inzelberg and Rothwell15,Reference Ammann, Dileone and Pagge16 Interestingly, a study showed that short-interval ICF, which is caused by summation of activation of different facilitatory interneurons in the M1, is increased in PD patients. Reference Ni, Bahl, Gunraj, Mazzella and Chen17 Studies have demonstrated that patients with upper limb dystonia, Reference Ridding, Sheean, Rothwell, Inzelberg and Kujirai18 cervical dystonia, Reference Kaňovský, Bareš, Streitová, Klajblová, Daniel and Rektor19 and blepharospasm have reduced SICI. Reference Sommer, Ruge, Tergau, Beuche, Altenmüller and Paulus20 Also, TMS can be combined with a wide range of brain mapping modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or magnetic resonance spectroscopy and has great scientific and clinical potential. Reference Siebner, Bergmann and Bestmann21Reference Rossi, Antal and Bestmann24

Limitations of TMS

The extent of the induced current in the brain can be variable. It is not known which type of neurons are stimulated by TMS and whether the effects of TMS on the neurons are excitatory, inhibitory, or state dependent. Reference Ziemann25 Another limitation is that the TMS most affects the cortical structures. It is difficult to specifically target subcortical regions, and TMS pulse cannot stimulate subcortical areas without affecting cortical ones. Reference Bolognini and Ro26,Reference Sliwinska, Vitello and Devlin27

Summary of Single and Paired TMS

An important feature of magnetic stimulation that differentiates it from electrical stimulation is that the current induced flows parallel to the surface of coil in the brain. Different TMS techniques and parameters have demonstrated potential diagnostic utility with promising results. However, further studies with large sample sizes are needed to establish the sensitivity and specificity of the techniques in each condition.

Repetitive TMS (rTMS)

Basics of rTMS

The use of rTMS as a treatment was first described in 1993 as a treatment for drug-resistant major depression. Reference Höflich, Kasper, Hufnagel, Ruhrmann and Möller28 Since TMS indirectly activates pyramidal neurons of layer V of the motor cortex (M1) through interneurons in layers II and III, it is believed that rTMS triggers the same set of synaptic connections multiple times.

rTMS and Cortical Excitability

rTMS over the motor cortex leads to lasting changes in MEP amplitudes that persist post stimulation. Previous studies showed that high-frequency (>5 Hz) rTMS increases cortical excitability, whereas low frequency (1 Hz or lower) rTMS decreases cortical excitability. Reference Pascual-Leone, Gomez-Tortosa, Grafman, Alway, Nichelli and Hallett29,Reference Chen, Classen and Gerloff30 These changes are likely caused by synaptic long-term potentiation and depression (LTP/LTD) since effects of rTMS are blocked by administration of drugs that interfere with N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, which are known to be involved in LTP/LTD processes. Reference Ziemann, Paulus and Nitsche31,Reference Hoogendam, Ramakers and Di Lazzaro32 The physiological effects of a single session of rTMS lasts around 30–60 min based on the protocol administered. Reference Hoogendam, Ramakers and Di Lazzaro32 Repeated rTMS administration leads to cumulative effects, depending on the number of sessions. Reference Bäumer, Demiralay and Hidding33,Reference Schulze, Feffer and Lozano34

Clinical Applications

For the treatment of psychiatric disorders such as depression, the remission rates were higher with longer duration of rTMS treatment (daily up to 6 weeks), and previous studies indicate that at least 20 to 30 sessions are needed to have optimal effects. Reference O’Reardon, Solvason and Janicak35,Reference Milev, Giacobbe and Kennedy36 rTMS also induced changes in the functional and structural connectivity of the associated networks. Reference Anderson, Hoy, Daskalakis and Fitzgerald37 In addition to the frequency of rTMS, the number of pulses is also important. In a study in patients with tinnitus, patients who received 6000 pulses did not improve but patients who received 12,000 pulses reported a beneficial effect on tinnitus. Reference Park, Noh and Lee38 Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) protocol involves magnetic pulses dispensed in bursts of three pulse at high frequency (50 Hz) with an interburst interval of 200 ms or 5 Hz (i.e., at the theta frequency). Reference Huang, Edwards, Rounis, Bhatia and Rothwell39 A meta-analysis suggested TBS may be an effective treatment for depression. Reference Berlim, McGirr, Rodrigues dos Santos, Tremblay and Martins40 A non-inferiority study showed similar efficacy of intermittent TBS (iTBS) and 10 Hz rTMS in the treatment of depression, but TBS has the advantage that it can be administered in a much shorter time. Reference Blumberger, Vila-Rodriguez and Thorpe41 Both high-frequency rTMS and the theta-burst TMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) have been approved by the United States Federal Drug Administration and Health Canada for treatment of medication-resistant depression. Reference Blumberger, Vila-Rodriguez and Thorpe41,Reference Lefaucheur, Aleman and Baeken42 The therapeutic use of rTMS is usually as add-on treatment, especially for refractory symptoms. A consensus panel reported that TMS can be recommended for treatment of major depressive disorder, neuropathic pain (NP), post-traumatic brain injury-related headaches, postoperative pain, and migraine. Reference Lefaucheur, Aleman and Baeken42,Reference Leung, Shirvalkar and Chen43 However, many conditions such as NP, motor symptoms of PD, stroke, and its complications: dysphagia, aphasia, hemispatial neglect, multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder showed promising therapeutic evidence as shown by Class II and III studies or level B recommendation. Reference Blumberger, Vila-Rodriguez and Thorpe41

Adverse Effects of rTMS

Although very rare, TMS can induce seizures under ordinary clinical use in 1 out of 30,000 treatments. Reference Carpenter, Janicak and Aaronson44 According to the safety guidelines of Rossi et al. (2021), stimulation parameters within the safety guidelines usually have minimal side effects. Reference Rossi, Antal and Bestmann24 An interesting observation that even the highest intensity (within the technical limitations of the machine) of TBS could not induce seizures in a series of eight patients in an epilepsy monitoring unit. Reference Udupa, Tai and Saha45 Syncope is another potential side-effects of rTMS especially in patients with high degree of anxiety, dehydration, or hypoglycemia. Reference McClintock, Reti and Carpenter46

Summary of rTMS

rTMS is a safe, noninvasive NIBS therapy which is being increasingly incorporated into clinical practice. Additional research to test the therapeutic application of rTMS in neurological and psychiatric disorders is warranted.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

Basics of tDCS

tDCS is a commonly used NIBS technique that stimulates the brain using electric current (typically 1–2 mA) through the electrodes placed on the scalp (as anode and cathode; Figure 3A).

Figure 3: Schematic representation of the transcranial direct (tDCS) and alternating (tACS) current stimulation: (A) tDCS: transcranial direct current stimulation showing anodal and cathodal electrodes placed over bifrontal regions and the graph below plots stimulation intensity overtime demonstrating that the intensity ramps up and down, and the intensity provided over the stipulated time. (B) tACS: transcranial alternating current stimulation showing headband containing electrodes and the graph below shows that the stimulation intensities vary in a sinusoidal manner overtime with the alternating polarity of current applied.

Changes in Brain Excitability with tDCS

Studies have demonstrated that anodal tDCS (positive stimulation) increases cortical excitability likely due to depolarization of the resting membrane potential that increases neuronal excitability, leading to increased spontaneous neuronal firing. On the other hand, cathodal tDCS (negative stimulation) reduces cortical excitability, likely related to hyperpolarization of the resting membrane potential. Reference Nitsche, Cohen and Wassermann47,Reference Nitsche and Paulus48 The efficacy of these changes depends on the duration of stimulation. Reference Stagg, Antal and Nitsche49 Animal studies in the 1960s had demonstrated that a few minutes of direct current (DC) stimulation of the sensorimotor cortex caused a prolonged change in neuronal activities for 1–5 h. Reference Bindman, Lippold and Redfearn50 Glutamatergic synapses are involved in DC induced plasticity, especially with the involvement of NMDA receptors. Pharmacological studies in humans have revealed that blockade of NMDA receptors with dextromethorphan prevents anodal and cathodal tDCS induced plasticity. Reference Nitsche, Fricke and Henschke51 Moreover, NMDA receptor agonist D-Cycloserine led to an increase in anodal tDCS induced excitability. Reference Nitsche, Jaussi, Liebetanz, Lang, Tergau and Paulus52

Mechanistic Basis of tDCS

The influx of calcium ions (Ca2+) into the cell due to the activation of NMDA receptors is needed for the generation of LTP and LTD as demonstrated in animal slice preparation studies using patch-clamping techniques. Several neurotransmitters are involved in the induction of LTP and LTD. With a rapid rise in postsynaptic Ca2+ concentration, Ca2+ binds to the C-terminal of calmodulin which activates the kinase pathways, resulting in an increase of α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor density on the postsynaptic membrane leading to LTP. On the other hand, with a slower increase in postsynaptic Ca2+ concentration, Ca2+ binds to the N-terminal of calmodulin activating the phosphatase pathways, resulting in a decrease of AMPA receptor density on the postsynaptic membrane, leading to LTD (Figure 4). Reference Rossi, Antal and Bestmann24,Reference Udupa and Chen53

Figure 4: Schematic representation of the cascades of events involved in long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD). Different neurotransmitters are involved in these cascades. Different neurotransmitter and their receptors are shown in yellow rectangular boxes. Glutamate acting through N-methyl D-Aspartate, dopamine through D1, adenosine through A2A, and acetylcholine through muscarinic receptors leads to LTP. On the other hand, glutamate acting through metabotropic receptors, dopamine through both D1 and D2 receptors, and cholinergic activation lead to LTD. Different changes occur depending on the rate of increase of postsynaptic calcium (Ca2+). The rapid influx of Ca2+ preferentially promotes binding of Ca2+ to the C-terminal of calmodulin, activating the kinase pathways. These reactions lead to an increase in AMPA receptor density on the postsynaptic membrane resulting in LTP. On the other hand, slower release of Ca2+ leads to Ca2+ binding to the N-terminal of calmodulin, activating the phosphatase pathways. This leads to a decrease in AMPA receptor density on the postsynaptic membrane, resulting in LTD. (Adapted from Udupa K and Chen R, Motor Cortical Plasticity in Parkinson’s Disease, Front. Neurol. 4 [2013].)

Duration and strength of stimulation were too long (≥25 min) or too strong (≥2 mA) can change the direction of the tDCS effects. Reference Udupa and Chen53Reference Jamil, Batsikadze and Kuo56 These changes are presumed to occur because of calcium ion changes in the postsynaptic cells due to changes in membrane polarity. However, other neurotransmitters and neuromodulators are also involved such as acetylcholine, dopamine, and serotonin, and they may play important roles. Reference Fritsch, Reis and Martinowich57,Reference Nitsche, Müller-Dahlhaus, Paulus and Ziemann58

For example, dopamine blockers prevent plasticity induction by tDCS. Reference Nitsche, Lampe and Antal59,Reference Márquez-Ruiz, Leal-Campanario and Sánchez-Campusano60 Therefore, these neurotransmitters affect plasticity induction. Reference Nitsche, Müller-Dahlhaus, Paulus and Ziemann58 In summary, tDCS induces calcium-dependent plasticity at glutamatergic synapses, which is gated by the reduction of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) activity. Reference Fritsch, Reis and Martinowich57,Reference Nitsche, Müller-Dahlhaus, Paulus and Ziemann58

Clinical Applications

Studies have reported that anodal tDCS over the DLPFC improves cognitive functions as well as emotional processes in patients with major depression. Reference Fregni, Boggio, Nitsche, Marcolin, Rigonatti and Pascual-Leone61 In patients with bipolar or unipolar depression, five tDCS sessions of 20 min each with anodal stimulation over the left DLPFC led to a reduction in depressive symptoms after the fifth session. Reference Brunoni, Ferrucci and Bortolomasi62 In patients with schizophrenia refractory to antipsychotic drugs, auditory verbal hallucinations were reduced by tDCS relative to sham stimulation as indicated by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Reference Brunelin, Mondino and Gassab63

Apart from improving psychiatric symptoms, tDCS administered bilaterally over the cerebellar cortex to treat neurodegenerative ataxic symptoms has shown significant improvement based on the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale, the 9-Hole Peg Test, and the 8-Meter Walking Time. These results suggested that a single session of anodal tDCS over the cerebellar cortex may enhance motor performance, and improve motor and upper limb coordination in patients with neurodegenerative ataxia. Reference Benussi, Koch, Cotelli, Padovani and Borroni64 Another study reported that 10 sessions of anodal tDCS over the cerebellar area improved symptoms for 3 months and modulated cerebello-motor connectivity measured by cerebellar inhibition in patients with cerebellar ataxia. Reference Benussi, Dell’Era and Cotelli65

Previous studies demonstrated that the benefits of tDCS may require multiple sessions. In a study in patients with fibromyalgia, Reference Carvalho, Brietzke and Gasparin66 a home-based tDCS device that permits daily use for 20 min with a minimal interval of 12 h between session was used and suggested that a portable device for home use is feasible with proper monitoring of adherence and contact impedance. Reference Carvalho, Brietzke and Gasparin66 Studies have also investigated the accessibility of tDCS on patients with PD using a remotely supervised tDCS protocol paired with cognitive training to reduce clinician, patient, and caregiver burden. It was found that remotely supervised tDCS was safe, tolerable with minimal side effects such as mild sensations of transient itching, and patients with PD reported improvement of fatigue as well as increased cognitive performance. Reference Dobbs, Pawlak and Biagioni67

Side Effects and Limitations of tDCS

A study summarized the adverse effects of tDCS sessions over motor and non-motor cortical areas in healthy subjects, neurological, and psychiatric patients. The results demonstrated that during an around 18,000 sessions of tDCS administration, no serious adverse events have been reported. Moderate adverse events were rare; however, skin burns due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact have been reported. Rarely cases such as mania or, hypomania were induced in patients with depression. Fatigue and headache were also reported followed by light itching and burning sensation under the stimulation electrodes. Reference Antal, Alekseichuk and Bikson68 Skin redness has also been reported. Reference Frank, Wilfurth, Landgrebe, Eichhammer, Hajak and Langguth69,Reference Palm, Reisinger and Keeser70 The low spatial resolution and difficulty in precisely localizing the electric field current in the brain are some of the limitations of tDCS. It is to be noted that the inability to target deeper structures except superficial cortex is a limitation for most NIBS techniques except for transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS).

Summary of tDCS

tDCS is an NIBS technique which has been applied in psychiatric and neurological disorders with some promising results. While there are a large number of tDCS studies, the mechanisms and neural correlates underlying tDCS are not fully understood. The behavioral and neural effects of different montages of tDCS should be systematically tested.

Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS)

Basics of tACS

tACS is an NIBS technique which delivers oscillating electrical currents to the brain. Reference Antal, Boros, Poreisz, Chaieb, Terney and Paulus71Reference Guerra, Suppa and Bologna73 tACS is a variant of tDCS, was designed to modulate the brain oscillations and the cognitive functions, and to serve as a therapeutic tool in restoring dysfunctional cortical oscillations in neurological disorders. Reference Krause, Wach, Südmeyer, Ferrea, Schnitzler and Pollok74Reference Ahn, Mellin and Alagapan78 tACS involves the application of sinusoidal current between two electrodes where current and polarity alternates according to the sine wave pattern. Reference Antal, Boros, Poreisz, Chaieb, Terney and Paulus71,Reference Antal and Herrmann79 tACS can be applied in any frequency. Previous studies have used a range from DC to 5 kHz for induction of sustained changes in cortical excitability Reference Chaieb, Antal and Paulus80 and 200 kHz for tumour therapy Reference Kirson, Dbalý and Tovaryš81 (Figure 3B).

Entrainment

The main effect of tACS is to modulate and entrain ongoing rhythmic brain activities. Reference Kuo, Polanía, Nitsche, Brunoni, Nitsche and Loo82 Studies in nonhuman primates have demonstrated that tACS affect the timing of neuron spiking activity in the region targeted. Reference Krause, Vieira, Csorba, Pilly and Pack83 A study performed in young and older adults stimulated at the individual alpha frequency for 10 min (1.5 mA) over the left motor cortex to understand the relationship between effects of tACS and electroencephalography (EEG) alpha power, which decreases with ageing. Although tACS increased motor cortical excitability (increased MEP amplitude) in both groups, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI, a measure of GABA-A receptor-mediated inhibitory circuit) decreased in young subjects but increased with older subjects. Since the increase in cortical excitability was similar in both groups, there is no indication that tACS was more effective in the elderly population i.e., the group with lower alpha power. Reference Fresnoza, Christova and Feil84 Another study applied tACS at the alpha frequency (8–12 Hz) for 11–15 min in four sessions with intermittent or sham tACS to investigate as to what extent plasticity can account for tACS aftereffects when controlling for entrainment “echoes” (an entrained activity that remains stable after the end of rhythmic stimulation). The study used successive tACS events which were either phase continuous or phase discontinuous for short (3 s) or long (8 s) duration. The study suggested that α-tACS can be used as a therapeutic tool with induction of short term neural plasticity rather than entrained activity. Reference Vossen, Gross and Thut85 Previous studies have demonstrated that tACS applied at an alpha frequency range resulted in enhancement of EEG amplitude for 10–30 min after stimulation. These studies indicate that tACS modulates spontaneous cortical oscillatory activity. Reference Zaehle, Rach and Herrmann86,Reference Neuling, Rach and Herrmann87 Furthermore, synaptic modifications from exposure to the alternating electrical field might alter neurochemical mechanisms such as calcium entry in the presynaptic terminals that can lead to short-term synaptic plasticity. Reference Citri and Malenka88

tACS and Behavioural Changes

tACS over the M1 may improve cortical functions as identified by the improved cognition compared with sham or no stimulation. Reference Paulus, Nitsche and Antal89 tACS has been used to modulate the M1 when applied within the beta (13–30 Hz) or the high-gamma (60–90 Hz) frequency ranges during a visuomotor task and concurrent functional MRI. The results showed that tACS not only changed neural activities underneath the stimulation electrode but also led to compensatory modulation within connected and functionally related brain networks. Reference Pogosyan, Gaynor, Eusebio and Brown90,Reference Moisa, Polania, Grueschow and Ruff91 Furthermore, tACS improves motor performance which correlated with increased synchronization of the gamma frequency band in M1. Reference Moisa, Polania, Grueschow and Ruff91,Reference Joundi, Jenkinson, Brittain, Aziz and Brown92 A study co-stimulated the M1 in healthy subjects with tACS during iTBS which is known to induce LTP-like plasticity to determine whether gamma tACS on iTBS-induced plasticity are related to changes in GABA-A receptor-mediated interneuronal activity. Reference Guerra, Suppa and Bologna73 Gamma frequency tACS but not beta frequency tACS increased as well as prolonged iTBS-induced LTP-like plasticity in the human M1, indicating a link between gamma oscillations, interneuronal GABA-A-ergic activity, and LTP-like plasticity in the human M1. Reference Guerra, Suppa and Bologna73 A study examined the aftereffects of tACS (10 and 20 Hz) of the parietal cortex on bimanual coordination. The participants received 10 and 20 Hz tACS, or sham stimulation of 1 mA at the parietal brain areas (P3/P4 positions) for 20 min. No specific effect of tACS on the bimanual coordination task was observed. However, there was a rise in the parietal alpha activity following the 20 Hz tACS in the right parietal area which was accompanied by decreased oxygenated haemoglobin (Hb) concentration in the right motor cortex as measured by functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Thus, tACS affects cortical physiology. Reference Berger, Pixa, Steinberg and Doppelmayr93 The behavioral effects of tACS have been reported in many studies. tACS has been found to modulate auditory perception as thresholds of detection were dependent on the phase of the oscillation that was entrained by α-tDCS, establishing a correlation between stimulation phase and modulation of perception. Reference Neuling, Rach, Wagner, Wolters and Herrmann94 tACS applied at 0.75 Hz frequency to subjects during early nocturnal non-rapid-eye-movement sleep enhanced EEG delta activity resulting in the improved recall of memory the next morning. Reference Marshall, Helgadóttir, Mölle and Born95 Another study found that left parietal tACS at theta frequency improved performance on working memory of an attention task along with decrement in P300 latency in the left hemisphere. Reference Jaušovec and Jaušovec96 Multiple studies on tACS suggested that cross-frequency phase-amplitude coupling of theta and gamma oscillations play a role in neuronal computation, communication, and learning. Reference Mormann, Fell and Axmacher97,Reference Demiralp, Bayraktaroglu and Lenz98

Clinical Applications

tACS can modulate impaired oscillatory patterns such as in PD leading to reduced tremor amplitude Reference Brittain, Probert-Smith, Aziz and Brown99 and attenuation or resetting pathological oscillations in schizophrenia. Reference Ahn, Mellin and Alagapan78 Patients with PD have been found to have reduced γ oscillatory activity in the basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical network, Reference Anzak, Tan and Pogosyan100,Reference Florin, Erasmi and Reck101 and plasticity induced by iTBS is reduced in these patients. Reference Suppa, Marsili and Belvisi102 A recent study showed that iTBS induced plasticity in PD patients was normalized when iTBS was applied during tACS at γ frequency. Reference Guerra, Asci and D’Onofrio103 Furthermore, tACS administered over 3 months to the orbitofrontal cortex personalized to the intrinsic beta gamma frequency in patients with obsessive compulsive disorder modulated reward learning and improved obsessive compulsive behavior. Reference Grover, Nguyen, Viswanathan and Reinhart104 A study used 200-kHz tACS in patients with recurrent glioblastoma suggested that this type of stimulation may inhibit the growth of this treatment-resistant tumor, with little or no side effects. Reference Kirson, Dbalý and Tovaryš81 Another study applied tACS of the cerebellum phase locked to the tremor in patients with essential tremor and showed that tremor suppression was due to disruption of temporal coherence of the aberrant oscillations in the olivocerebellar loop. Reference Schreglmann, Wang and Peach105

Side Effects of tACS

The most common side effects in tACS studies are nausea, discomfort, and twitching. tACS administered over the motor cortex can lead to perception of phosphenes or flashes in the subjects’ visual field. Reference Antal, Boros, Poreisz, Chaieb, Terney and Paulus71 Phosphene perception peaks at stimulation frequencies between 10–20 Hz. Reference Kanai, Chaieb, Antal, Walsh and Paulus106 Posterior montages with frequency of 4 Hz have caused dizziness due to stimulation of the vestibular nerve. Reference Raco, Bauer, Olenik, Brkic and Gharabaghi107

Summary of tACS

tACS acts by modulating ongoing brain rhythms and altering neuronal properties and networks. While tACS is the only method of modulating the individual alpha frequency, larger studies to validate results are required due to variability in the response to tACS protocols. Despite advances in the field of neuromodulation, further studies are need to unravel the effects of tACS at multiple levels from molecular to animal neurophysiology and to clinical applications. It is also important to explore the utility of this technique in understanding the aberrations in neuronal networks in neurological and psychiatric disorders and to use this technique effectively to bring about optimal clinical benefits.

Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS)

Basics of tRNS

tRNS is a unique kind of tACS where low-intensity alternating current is administered with randomized intensity and frequency. Reference Antal and Herrmann79 tRNS has so far been explored within the frequency spectrum of 0.1–640 Hz (full spectrum) or 101–640 Hz (high-frequency stimulation) with a “white noise” characteristic. Reference Terney, Chaieb, Moliadze, Antal and Paulus108,Reference Fertonani, Pirulli and Miniussi109 The probability function of the RNS is a Gaussian curve with zero mean and a variance. In most studies, the current intensity used to stimulate is around 1 mA. Reference Antal and Herrmann79 The physiological mechanisms of tRNS remain unclear. Higher frequencies of tRNS are supposed to modulate brain activity. However, due to the neuronal membrane acting as a low pass filter, a very small amount of current reaches the neuron with high frequencies tRNS. For example, AC electric fields at 1 V/m (max) in the brain at 100 Hz can polarize neurons by only 50 μV. Reference Deans, Powell and Jefferys110 However, this small change in many connected neurons can provide amplification of stimulation leading to physiological effects. Reference Fröhlich and McCormick111,Reference Reato, Rahman, Bikson and Parra112 The effect of tRNS could be contingent on other mechanisms such as stochastic resonance. Reference Stacey and Durand113 Stochastic resonance is a ubiquitous and conspicuous phenomenon—where a weak signal is amplified by adding noise to exceed its threshold of stimulation. Reference Moss, Ward and Sannita114 tRNS might increase neural firing by amplifying subthreshold oscillatory activity, also leading to decrement in the endogenous noise. This improved signal to noise ratio in the brain could lead to increased perception or cognition. Reference Moss, Ward and Sannita114Reference Miniussi, Harris and Ruzzoli116

tRNS and Cortical Excitability Changes

tRNS administered over the primary motor cortex (M1) for 10 min with 1 mA application of full-spectrum or high-frequency transcranial random noise (hf-tRNS) elevated cortical excitability for 1–1.5 h. Reference Terney, Chaieb, Moliadze, Antal and Paulus108 Five to six minutes of stimulation also showed significant facilitation but with shorter duration of plasticity post stimulation. Reference Chaieb, Paulus and Antal117 In another study, it was observed that unilateral M1-tRNS enhanced motor learning. Reference Prichard, Weiller, Fritsch and Reis118 tRNS at low intensity of 0.4 mA had greater inhibitory aftereffects compared with cathodal tDCS at 1 mA or 140-Hz tACS at 0.4 mA, which suggests that inhibitory neurons might have lower thresholds for tRNS. Reference Moliadze, Atalay, Antal and Paulus119 In healthy subjects, it was noted that tRNS had an immediate effect of increased MEP amplitude with a duration of 40 min post stimulation, whereas anodal tDCS induced a gradual increase until 60 min following stimulation. Reference Laczó, Antal, Rothkegel and Paulus120 tRNS applied over the lateral occipital cortex was found to facilitate facial identity perception. Reference Romanska, Rezlescu, Susilo, Duchaine and Banissy121 hf-tRNS over the auditory cortex either unilaterally or bilaterally during a verbal dichotic listening task led to a significant increase in right ear advantage during bilateral hf-tRNS compared with sham stimulation. Reference Prete, D’Anselmo, Tommasi and Brancucci122

Clinical Applications

A study reported that tRNS over the temporoparietal cortex in patients with nonpulsatile tinnitus reduces tinnitus loudness when low frequency-tRNS (0.1–100 Hz) or hf-tRNS (100–640 Hz) were applied. Reference Joos, De Ridder and Vanneste123 A study investigated the efficacy of tRNS over the left DLPFC on attention and NP in patients with multiple sclerosis and reported that tRNS decreased the N2–P2 amplitudes of pain-related evoked potentials and improved pain ratings. Reference Palm, Chalah and Padberg124 However, there were no improvements in attention and mood scales.

Side Effects of tRNS

Although tRNS is a safe technique, burns on the skin where the electrode was applied have been reported. tRNS can cause headache in subjects. Reference Antal, Alekseichuk and Bikson68

Summary of tRNS

tRNS is a painless, noninvasive, as well as reversible neuromodulation that can temporarily enhance the excitability of the cortex. The high-frequency tRNS can increase cortical excitability. Reference Moret, Donato, Nucci, Cona and Campana125 However, the side effects are generally mild and temporary. Reference Lema, Carvalho, Fregni, Gonçalves and Leite126 Also, multiple sessions are required to produce clinical benefit. Larger sample size studies with standardized protocols are required to validate the results of earlier studies.

Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation (taVNS)

Basics of taVNS

The vagus nerve (10th cranial nerve) is a mixed parasympathetic nerve which is an important component of the autonomic nervous system. It plays a key role in several body functions including swallowing, heart rate control, speech, respiratory control, gastric secretion, as well as intestinal motility. Reference Breit, Kupferberg, Rogler and Hasler127 The vagus nerve can be stimulated in two different ways: by a direct invasive stimulation (most frequent application) or by an indirect transcutaneous noninvasive stimulation (Figure 5). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a common invasive neuromodulation approach with a pulse generator implanted below the clavicle, and the lead is wrapped around the vagus nerve in the carotid sheath. Reference González, Yengo-Kahn and Englot128 VNS therapy reduces seizure frequency and improves the quality of life in patients with epilepsy. Reference Englot129 Previous studies have applied VNS therapy in patients with partial seizures. A study found that high-frequency VNS led to least 50% reduction in seizure frequency and low-frequency VNS also led to a 50% reduction in seizure frequency after 14 weeks. Reference Ben-Menachem, Mañon-Espaillat and Ristanovic130 Another study found that high-frequency VNS resulted in an average reduction of 28% in total seizure frequency compared with a 15% reduction in the low-frequency stimulation group. Reference Handforth, DeGiorgio and Schachter131 Invasive VNS is a safe and efficacious therapeutic technique and newer VNS systems have the advantage of minimizing VNS related adverse events such as infection and vocal cord paresis. Reference Ben-Menachem, Mañon-Espaillat and Ristanovic130,Reference Schulze-Bonhage132

Figure 5: Illustration of transcutaneous auricular vagal nerve stimulation showing the locations of the stimulating electrodes over the auricle which send impulses to the brainstem, frontal, parietal, and other subcortical regions through the auricular branch of the vagus and its neuronal connections. The stimulation current figure indicates the stimulation parameters, and the bottom figure shows a portable stimulator which generates the impulses with specific stimulation parameters with a wireless design.

The outer ear of a human is supplied by three sensory nerves: the auriculo-temporal nerve, the great auricular nerve, and the auricular branch of the vagus nerve (ABVN) (Figure 2). Reference Peuker and Filler133 taVNS is a relatively new method of noninvasive neural stimulation which targets the cutaneous receptive field of the ABVN at the outer ear. Reference Ellrich134 It has been introduced as an alternative to the invasive VNS procedure. Reference Kreuzer, Landgrebe and Husser135 taVNS is given at 10–25 Hz with a pulse width of 250–500 μs. The amplitude of stimulation varies from 0.25 to 10 mA depending on the experimental protocol, and some groups investigated different intensities as a function of individual perceptual threshold. Reference Busch, Zeman, Heckel, Menne, Ellrich and Eichhammer136Reference Badran, Yu and Adair138 taVNS has been reported to increase heart rate variability (HRV), suggestive of a shift in cardiac autonomic function toward parasympathetic predominance. Thus, taVNS can influence human autonomic balance and provides an alternative to invasive VNS. Reference Clancy, Mary, Witte, Greenwood, Deuchars and Deuchars139

taVNS and Behavioural Changes

taVNS was used to test the causal relationship between VNS and the flow (pleasant psychological state of mind that individuals tend to experience when completely absorbed into specific action) measured using the Flow Short Scale. It was found that active compared with sham taVNS decreased the flow (as indexed by absorption scale scores), suggesting that the vagus nerve and the noradrenergic system are causally involved inflow. Reference Colzato, Wolters and Peifer137 To complete a complex task, different responses need to be prioritized and organized into different actions. A single-blind, sham-controlled study that assessed online (i.e., stimulation overlapping with the critical task) effects demonstrated that taVNS led to faster response selections during multiple tasks and helped in cascading different actions, and vagal stimulation might have improved performance in action cascading by modulating the noradrenergic and GABA systems. Reference Steenbergen, Sellaro, Stock, Verkuil, Beste and Colzato140 taVNS has also been found to increase the efficiency of action cascading measured by a stop-change paradigm. Reference Steenbergen, Sellaro, Stock, Verkuil, Beste and Colzato140 An interesting study investigated whether taVNS can reduce negative thought intrusions in high worriers. Participants exposed to taVNS reported less negative thought intrusions. Reference Burger, Van der Does, Thayer, Brosschot and Verkuil141 To examine whether taVNS affects autonomic modulation and spontaneous cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (cBRS), a study showed decreased resting HRV and increased cBRS, indicating modulation of autonomic functions by taVNS. Reference Antonino, Teixeira and Maia-Lopes142 A recent study found that participants who received taVNS tend to have lower declarative fear during fear extinction. Reference Burger, Van Diest and Van der Does143

Clinical Applications

A study in patients with unilateral, nonpulsatile chronic tinnitus applied taVNS over 2 weeks (pulse width, 200 μs; frequency, 30 Hz; stimulation sites [in sequence], the cavum, cymba, and the outer surface of the tragus; stimulation duration 4 min for each site) found that taVNS can be used to improve tinnitus. A ball-type electrode was placed on the stimulation site with the intensity increased by 1 mA every 5 s as long as the patients could tolerate without pain. The study found that tinnitus distress level decreased and a positive correlation between the level of tinnitus distress and the initial stimulus intensity of taVNS was observed. Reference Suk, Kim, Chang and Lee144 In a randomized, sham-controlled pilot study in patients with major depression, taVNS was administered for 15 min once or twice a day, five days per week, for two weeks. The Beck Depression Inventory scores improved with taVNS compared with sham stimulation. Reference Hein, Nowak and Kiess145 A study in patients with chronic stroke administered taVNS combined with robotic rehabilitation to enhance upper limb functions and reported a slight improvement in the patients post-intervention. Reference Capone, Miccinilli and Pellegrino146 taVNS has been applied to patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial. There was a significant decrease in seizure frequency after 20 weeks in the active treatment (25 Hz stimulation) group compared with the control (1 Hz) group. Reference Hamer and Bauer147 taVNS has also been tested on a randomized, double-blinded pilot study in PD patients with gastrointestinal complaints. The authors reported that scores of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale improved post taVNS in the real stimulation but not in the sham stimulation group. Reference Kaut, Janocha, Weismüller and Wüllner148

Side Effects and Limitations of taVNS

The side effects of taVNS are generally minimal and skin irritation or redness are the most common side effect. Reference Badran, Yu and Adair138 A limitation of taVNS is the vast parameter space. It is still uncertain whether pulse width or frequency are more important. Reference Fallgatter, Neuhauser and Herrmann149

Summary of taVNS

taVNS is a noninvasive tool with few side effects and maybe a promising noninvasive therapy in patients with depression, migraine, and other neurological conditions compared with the invasive and more costly VNS. taVNS can increase or decrease activities in different brain areas. The mechanisms of action is not fully understood and optimal stimulation parameters have not been established. It is important to develop systematic studies which can elucidate the utility of taVNS and understand its mechanism of action.

Other Noninvasive Neuromodulation Techniques

In addition to transcranial magnetic or electric noninvasive neuromodulation techniques, transcranial ultrasound and vestibular stimulation are two NIBS techniques with potential utility in neurophysiology and clinical practice.

Low-intensity TUS is gaining traction as a method of neuromodulation. One study investigated the efficacy of TUS on sensory-evoked brain activity and sensory discrimination abilities. Reference Legon, Sato and Opitz150 TUS targeted to the human primary somatosensory cortex (S1) enhanced performance on sensory discrimination tasks without affecting task attention or response bias. Reference Legon, Sato and Opitz150 In a recent study, 16 subjects were administered low-intensity 500-kHz TUS coupled to a TMS coil and found that TUS suppressed motor cortical excitability with longer TUS duration leading to greater effects. Reference Fomenko, Chen and Nankoo1 Another study used transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS) which involved ultrashort ultrasound pulses instead of periodic waves and long sonication trains to provide better skull penetration due to the dominance of lower frequencies. Reference Beisteiner, Matt and Fan151 Patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease were treated in an open-labeled study with TPS for 2–4 weeks. There were significant improvements found in the language domain along with memory performance in the patients following TPS therapy.

Stochastic vestibular stimulation, or galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS), is a simple and safe method to induce neuronal activity in both the semicircular canals as well as the otolith organs of the peripheral vestibular system. Reference Fitzpatrick and Day152 GVS has been found to improve stability during balance tasks in healthy individuals by facilitating enhanced information transfer using stochastic resonance principles. A study found that GVS administered to 13 healthy subjects for 60 s while they were walking on a treadmill and simultaneously viewing perceptually matched linear optic flow resulted in improved walking stability. The results suggested that GVS can be used to improve dynamic stability during walking. Reference Mulavara, Kofman and De Dios153 A study using GVS in patients with PD delivered at 70% of cutaneous thresholds (mean current intensity = 0.22 ± 0.02 mA) demonstrated that the sway frequency was mildly reduced following GVS. Reference Tran, Shafiee and Jones154

Comparison between Different NIBS Techniques

Inukai et al. (2016) compared different NIBS techniques (tDCS, tRNS, and tACS) with similar stimulation patterns (1.0 mA and 10 min) in healthy individuals. Cortical excitability was investigated via single-pulse TMS elicited MEPs. The study demonstrated that all three NIBS techniques increased MEP amplitudes compared with baseline but the effects of tRNS were most pronounced. The results suggest that tRNS may be the most effective transcranial electric stimulation (tES) method. Reference Inukai, Saito and Sasaki155

In randomized controlled studies, sham stimulation is needed as a control condition. Sham stimulation is relatively easy with tDCS, tACS, and other electrical stimulation techniques. A typical sham stimulation setting is that the stimulation is applied and then slowly ramped down, and this usually cannot be perceived by the subject. Sham stimulation is more difficult with rTMS due to clicking sound, muscle twitches, and scalp sensations. New designs of sham coils produced some scalp sensation, and some studies used electrical scalp stimulation to mimic scalp sensation to produce a realistic sham condition for rTMS.

There are few studies that directly compared different NIBS modalities. Although, TMS is most established and the only approved modality for treatment of brain disorders, electrical stimulation techniques have the advantage of lower cost, more portable, potentially be applied at home, and can be combined with rehabilitation or training during the application. More research studies comparing different modalities of NIBS and a combination of these modes of stimulation in neurological and psychiatric disorders are needed.

Concluding Remarks

The different neuromodulation techniques of NIBS such as TMS, tDCS, tACS, RNS, VNS, TUS, and GVS not only helped in understanding the brain physiology but can be a useful treatment in some of the neurological and psychiatric disorders. Further research is needed to expand the clinical utility of NIBS and combine various modes of NIBS to optimize the neuromodulation induced clinical benefits.

Acknowledgments

All authors acknowledge the funding support of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS) intramural research funding for part of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study.

Statement of Authorship

AB: prepared the initial draft and assisted in revision. KM and SS: assisted in preparation of the initial draft and subsequent drafts. STN, PKP, and RC: reviewed and suggested modification at various stages of preparation of the final draft and revision of the manuscript. KU: conceptualized the review and provided the guidance and overall supervision.

References

Fomenko, A, Chen, K-HS, Nankoo, J-F, et al. Systematic examination of low-intensity ultrasound parameters on human motor cortex excitability and behavior. eLife. 2020;9:e54497.10.7554/eLife.54497CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, AT, Jalinous, R, Freeston, IL. Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet. 1985;325:1106–7.10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92413-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossini, PM, Burke, D, Chen, R, et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an IFCN Committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126:1071–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R, Cros, D, Curra, A, et al. The clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119:504–32.10.1016/j.clinph.2007.10.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agrawal, A, Bhattacharya, A, Kamble, N, Yadav, R, Pal, PK. Effect of lumbar drainage on cortical excitability in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Can J Neurol Sci. 2020;48:253–8.10.1017/cjn.2020.169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothwell, JC. Techniques and mechanisms of action of transcranial stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurosci Methods. 1997;74:113–22.10.1016/S0165-0270(97)02242-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, KR. Biophysics of magnetic stimulation. In: Magnetic Stimulation of the Human Nervous System. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999, pp. 716.Google Scholar
Ueno, S, Tashiro, T, Harada, K. Localized stimulation of neural tissues in the brain by means of a paired configuration of time-varying magnetic fields. J Appl Phys. 1988;64:5862–4.10.1063/1.342181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terao, Y, Ugawa, Y. Basic mechanisms of TMS. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;19:322–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lo, YL, Chan, LL, Lim, W, et al. Systematic correlation of transcranial magnetic stimulation and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2004;29:1137–45.10.1097/00007632-200405150-00017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz-Martinez, A, Arpa, J. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with cerebellar stroke. Eur Neurol. 1997;38:82–7.10.1159/000113165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantello, R, Gianelli, M, Bettucci, D, Civardi, C, De Angelis, MS, Mutani, R. Parkinson’s disease rigidity: magnetic motor evoked potentials in a small hand muscle. Neurology. 1991;41:1449–56.10.1212/WNL.41.9.1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellaway, PH, Davey, NJ, Maskill, DW, Dick, JP. The relation between bradykinesia and excitability of the motor cortex assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation in normal and parkinsonian subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;97:169–78.10.1016/0924-980X(94)00336-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, BD, Ziemann, U, Corá-Locatelli, G, et al. Altered cortical excitability in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Neurology. 2000;54:142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridding, MC, Inzelberg, R, Rothwell, JC. Changes in excitability of motor cortical circuitry in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol. 1995;37:181–8.10.1002/ana.410370208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ammann, C, Dileone, M, Pagge, C, et al. Cortical disinhibition in Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2020;143:3408–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ni, Z, Bahl, N, Gunraj, CA, Mazzella, F, Chen, R. Increased motor cortical facilitation and decreased inhibition in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2013;80:1746–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridding, MC, Sheean, G, Rothwell, JC, Inzelberg, R, Kujirai, T. Changes in the balance between motor cortical excitation and inhibition in focal, task specific dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1995;59:493–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaňovský, P, Bareš, M, Streitová, H, Klajblová, H, Daniel, P, Rektor, I. Abnormalities of cortical excitability and cortical inhibition in cervical dystonia. J Neurol. 2003;250:4250.10.1007/s00415-003-0942-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommer, M, Ruge, D, Tergau, F, Beuche, W, Altenmüller, E, Paulus, W. Intracortical excitability in the hand motor representation in hand dystonia and blepharospasm. Mov Disord. 2002;17:1017–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebner, HR, Bergmann, TO, Bestmann, S, et al. Consensus paper: combining transcranial stimulation with neuroimaging. Brain Stimul. 2009;2:5880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bestmann, S, Feredoes, E. Combined neurostimulation and neuroimaging in cognitive neuroscience: past, present, and future. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013;1296:1130.10.1111/nyas.12110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallett, M, Di Iorio, R, Rossini, PM, et al. Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assessment of brain connectivity and networks. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:2125–39.10.1016/j.clinph.2017.08.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, S, Antal, A, Bestmann, S, et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: expert guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132:269306.10.1016/j.clinph.2020.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziemann, U. TMS in cognitive neuroscience: virtual lesion and beyond. Cortex J Devoted Study Nerv Syst Behav. 2010;46:124–7.10.1016/j.cortex.2009.02.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolognini, N, Ro, T. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: disrupting neural activity to alter and assess brain function. J Neurosci. 2010;30:9647–50.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1990-10.2010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sliwinska, MW, Vitello, S, Devlin, JT. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for investigating causal brain-behavioral relationships and their time course. J Vis Exp. 2014;51735.Google ScholarPubMed
Höflich, G, Kasper, S, Hufnagel, A, Ruhrmann, S, Möller, H-J. Application of transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment of drug-resistant major depression—a report of two cases. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 1993;8:361–65.10.1002/hup.470080510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual-Leone, A, Gomez-Tortosa, E, Grafman, J, Alway, D, Nichelli, P, Hallett, M. Induction of visual extinction by rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of parietal lobe. Neurology. 1994;44:494–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, R, Classen, J, Gerloff, C, et al. Depression of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology. 1997;48:1398–403.10.1212/WNL.48.5.1398CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziemann, U, Paulus, W, Nitsche, MA, et al. Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols. Brain Stimul. 2008;1:164–82.10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoogendam, JM, Ramakers, GMJ, Di Lazzaro, V. Physiology of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human brain. Brain Stimul. 2010;3:95118.10.1016/j.brs.2009.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bäumer, T, Demiralay, C, Hidding, U, et al. Abnormal plasticity of the sensorimotor cortex to slow repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with writer’s cramp. Mov Disord. 2007;22:8190.10.1002/mds.21219CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze, L, Feffer, K, Lozano, C, et al. Number of pulses or number of sessions? An open-label study of trajectories of improvement for once vs. twice-daily dorsomedial prefrontal rTMS in major depression. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:327–36.10.1016/j.brs.2017.11.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Reardon, JP, Solvason, HB, Janicak, PG, et al. Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62:1208–16.10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.01.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milev, RV, Giacobbe, P, Kennedy, SH, et al. Canadian network for mood and anxiety treatments (CANMAT) 2016 clinical guidelines for the management of adults with major depressive disorder: section 4. Neurostimulation treatments. Can J Psychiatry Rev Can Psychiatr. 2016;61:561–75.10.1177/0706743716660033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, RJ, Hoy, KE, Daskalakis, ZJ, Fitzgerald, PB. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment resistant depression: re-establishing connections. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127:3394–405.10.1016/j.clinph.2016.08.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, JH, Noh, T-S, Lee, JH, et al. Difference in tinnitus treatment outcome according to the pulse number of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36:1450–6.10.1097/MAO.0000000000000802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y-Z, Edwards, MJ, Rounis, E, Bhatia, KP, Rothwell, JC. Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex. Neuron. 2005;45:201–6.10.1016/j.neuron.2004.12.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlim, MT, McGirr, A, Rodrigues dos Santos, N, Tremblay, S, Martins, R. Efficacy of theta burst stimulation (TBS) for major depression: an exploratory meta-analysis of randomized and sham-controlled trials. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;90:102–9.10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.02.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumberger, DM, Vila-Rodriguez, F, Thorpe, KE, et al. Effectiveness of theta burst versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression (THREE-D): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2018;391:1683–92.10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30295-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefaucheur, J-P, Aleman, A, Baeken, C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): an update (2014–2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131:474528.10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, A, Shirvalkar, P, Chen, R, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain, headache, and comorbid depression: INS-NANS expert consensus panel review and recommendation. Neuromodulation. 2020;23:267–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, LL, Janicak, PG, Aaronson, ST, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for major depression: a multisite, naturalistic, observational study of acute treatment outcomes in clinical practice. Depress Anxiety. 2012;29:587–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udupa, K, Tai, P, Saha, U, et al. Theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to induce seizures in an epilepsy monitoring unit. Brain Stimul. 2020;13:1800–2.10.1016/j.brs.2020.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, SM, Reti, IM, Carpenter, LL, et al. Consensus recommendations for the clinical application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79:16cs10905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, MA, Cohen, LG, Wassermann, EM, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimul. 2008;1:206–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, MA, Paulus, W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527:633–9.10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stagg, CJ, Antal, A, Nitsche, MA. Physiology of transcranial direct current stimulation. J ECT 2018;34:144–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bindman, LJ, Lippold, OCJ, Redfearn, JWT. The action of brief polarizing currents on the cerebral cortex of the rat (1) during current flow and (2) in the production of long-lasting after-effects. J Physiol. 1964;172:369–82.10.1113/jphysiol.1964.sp007425CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, MA, Fricke, K, Henschke, U, et al. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol. 2003;553:293301.10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, MA, Jaussi, W, Liebetanz, D, Lang, N, Tergau, F, Paulus, W. Consolidation of human motor cortical neuroplasticity by D-cycloserine. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004;29:1573–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udupa, K, Chen, R. Motor cortical plasticity in Parkinson’s disease. Front Neurol. 2013;4:128.10.3389/fneur.2013.00128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monte-Silva, K, Kuo, M-F, Hessenthaler, S, et al. Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:424–32.10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batsikadze, G, Moliadze, V, Paulus, W, Kuo, M-F, Nitsche, MA. Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J Physiol. 2013;591:19872000.10.1113/jphysiol.2012.249730CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamil, A, Batsikadze, G, Kuo, H-I, et al. Systematic evaluation of the impact of stimulation intensity on neuroplastic after-effects induced by transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2017;595:1273–88.10.1113/JP272738CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fritsch, B, Reis, J, Martinowich, K, et al. Direct current stimulation promotes BDNF-dependent synaptic plasticity: potential implications for motor learning. Neuron. 2010;66:198204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, MA, Müller-Dahlhaus, F, Paulus, W, Ziemann, U. The pharmacology of neuroplasticity induced by non-invasive brain stimulation: building models for the clinical use of CNS active drugs. J Physiol. 2012;590:4641–62.10.1113/jphysiol.2012.232975CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsche, MA, Lampe, C, Antal, A, et al. Dopaminergic modulation of long-lasting direct current-induced cortical excitability changes in the human motor cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2006;23:1651–7.10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04676.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Márquez-Ruiz, J, Leal-Campanario, R, Sánchez-Campusano, R, et al. Transcranial direct-current stimulation modulates synaptic mechanisms involved in associative learning in behaving rabbits. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:6710–5.10.1073/pnas.1121147109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fregni, F, Boggio, PS, Nitsche, MA, Marcolin, MA, Rigonatti, SP, Pascual-Leone, A. Treatment of major depression with transcranial direct current stimulation. Bipolar Disord. 2006;8:203–4.10.1111/j.1399-5618.2006.00291.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunoni, AR, Ferrucci, R, Bortolomasi, M, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in unipolar vs. bipolar depressive disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2011;35:96101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunelin, J, Mondino, M, Gassab, L, et al. Examining transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) as a treatment for hallucinations in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:719–24.10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11071091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benussi, A, Koch, G, Cotelli, M, Padovani, A, Borroni, B. Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with ataxia: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study. Mov Disord. 2015;30:1701–5.10.1002/mds.26356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benussi, A, Dell’Era, V, Cotelli, MS, et al. Long term clinical and neurophysiological effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with neurodegenerative ataxia. Brain Stimul. 2017;10:242–50.10.1016/j.brs.2016.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, F, Brietzke, AP, Gasparin, A, et al. Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation device development: an updated protocol used at home in healthy subjects and fibromyalgia patients. J Vis Exp. 2018;57614.Google ScholarPubMed
Dobbs, B, Pawlak, N, Biagioni, M, et al. Generalizing remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): feasibility and benefit in Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15:114.10.1186/s12984-018-0457-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antal, A, Alekseichuk, I, Bikson, M, et al. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:1774–809.10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, E, Wilfurth, S, Landgrebe, M, Eichhammer, P, Hajak, G, Langguth, B. Anodal skin lesions after treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2010;3:58–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palm, U, Reisinger, E, Keeser, D, et al. Evaluation of sham transcranial direct current stimulation for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:690–5.10.1016/j.brs.2013.01.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antal, A, Boros, K, Poreisz, C, Chaieb, L, Terney, D, Paulus, W. Comparatively weak after-effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on cortical excitability in humans. Brain Stimul. 2008;1:97105.10.1016/j.brs.2007.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antal, A, Paulus, W. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:317.10.3389/fnhum.2013.00317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerra, A, Suppa, A, Bologna, M, et al. Boosting the LTP-like plasticity effect of intermittent theta-burst stimulation using gamma transcranial alternating current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:734–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, V, Wach, C, Südmeyer, M, Ferrea, S, Schnitzler, A, Pollok, B. Cortico-muscular coupling and motor performance are modulated by 20 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in Parkinson’s disease. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;7:928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreeraj, VS, Shanbhag, V, Nawani, H, et al. Feasibility of online neuromodulation using transcranial alternating current stimulation in schizophrenia. Indian J Psychol Med. 2017;39:92–5.10.4103/0253-7176.198937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellin, JM, Alagapan, S, Lustenberger, C, et al. Randomized trial of transcranial alternating current stimulation for treatment of auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry J. 2018;51:2533.10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Felice, A, Castiglia, L, Formaggio, E, et al. Personalized transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and physical therapy to treat motor and cognitive symptoms in Parkinson’s disease: a randomized cross-over trial. NeuroImage Clin. 2019;22:101768.10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahn, S, Mellin, JM, Alagapan, S, et al. Targeting reduced neural oscillations in patients with schizophrenia by transcranial alternating current stimulation. NeuroImage. 2019;186:126–36.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.056CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antal, A, Herrmann, CS. Transcranial alternating current and random noise stimulation: possible mechanisms. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:3616807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaieb, L, Antal, A, Paulus, W. Transcranial alternating current stimulation in the low kHz range increases motor cortex excitability. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2011;29:167–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Kirson, ED, Dbalý, V, Tovaryš, F, et al. Alternating electric fields arrest cell proliferation in animal tumor models and human brain tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:10152–7.10.1073/pnas.0702916104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuo, M-F, Polanía, R, Nitsche, M. Physiology of transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation. In: Brunoni, A, Nitsche, M, Loo, C, editors. Transcranial direct current stimulation in neuropsychiatric disorders. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016, pp. 2946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, MR, Vieira, PG, Csorba, BA, Pilly, PK, Pack, CC. Transcranial alternating current stimulation entrains single-neuron activity in the primate brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:5747–55.10.1073/pnas.1815958116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fresnoza, S, Christova, M, Feil, T, et al. The effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) at individual alpha peak frequency (iAPF) on motor cortex excitability in young and elderly adults. Exp Brain Res. 2018;236:2573–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vossen, A, Gross, J, Thut, G. Alpha power increase after transcranial alternating current stimulation at alpha frequency (α-tACS) reflects plastic changes rather than entrainment. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:499508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaehle, T, Rach, S, Herrmann, CS. Transcranial alternating current stimulation enhances individual alpha activity in human EEG. PloS One. 2010;5:e13766.10.1371/journal.pone.0013766CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neuling, T, Rach, S, Herrmann, CS. Orchestrating neuronal networks: sustained after-effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation depend upon brain states. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:161.10.3389/fnhum.2013.00161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Citri, A, Malenka, RC. Synaptic plasticity: multiple forms, functions, and mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:1841.10.1038/sj.npp.1301559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulus, W, Nitsche, MA, Antal, A. Application of transcranial electric stimulation (tDCS, tACS, tRNS): from motor-evoked potentials towards modulation of behaviour. Eur Psychol. 2016;21:414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogosyan, A, Gaynor, LD, Eusebio, A, Brown, P. Boosting cortical activity at Beta-band frequencies slows movement in humans. Curr Biol. 2009;19:1637–41.10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moisa, M, Polania, R, Grueschow, M, Ruff, CC. Brain network mechanisms underlying motor enhancement by transcranial entrainment of gamma oscillations. J Neurosci. 2016;36:12053–65.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2044-16.2016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joundi, RA, Jenkinson, N, Brittain, J-S, Aziz, TZ, Brown, P. Driving oscillatory activity in the human cortex enhances motor performance. Curr Biol. 2012;22:403–7.10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, A, Pixa, NH, Steinberg, F, Doppelmayr, M. Brain oscillatory and hemodynamic activity in a bimanual coordination task following transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS): a combined EEG-fNIRS study. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12:67.10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuling, T, Rach, S, Wagner, S, Wolters, CH, Herrmann, CS. Good vibrations: oscillatory phase shapes perception. NeuroImage. 2012;63:771–8.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, L, Helgadóttir, H, Mölle, M, Born, J. Boosting slow oscillations during sleep potentiates memory. Nature. 2006;444:610–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaušovec, N, Jaušovec, K. Increasing working memory capacity with theta transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Biol Psychol. 2014;96:42–7.10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mormann, F, Fell, J, Axmacher, N, et al. Phase/amplitude reset and theta–gamma interaction in the human medial temporal lobe during a continuous word recognition memory task. Hippocampus. 2005;15:890900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demiralp, T, Bayraktaroglu, Z, Lenz, D, et al. Gamma amplitudes are coupled to theta phase in human EEG during visual perception. Int J Psychophysiol. 2007;64:2430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brittain, J-S, Probert-Smith, P, Aziz, TZ, Brown, P. Tremor suppression by rhythmic transcranial current stimulation. Curr Biol. 2013;23:436–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anzak, A, Tan, H, Pogosyan, A, et al. Subthalamic nucleus activity optimizes maximal effort motor responses in Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2012;135:2766–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Florin, E, Erasmi, R, Reck, C, et al. Does increased gamma activity in patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease counteract the movement inhibiting beta activity? Neuroscience. 2013;237:4250.10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.01.051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suppa, A, Marsili, L, Belvisi, D, et al. Lack of LTP-like plasticity in primary motor cortex in Parkinson’s disease. Exp Neurol. 2011;227:296301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerra, A, Asci, F, D’Onofrio, V, et al. Enhancing gamma oscillations restores primary motor cortex plasticity in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosci. 2020;40:4788–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grover, S, Nguyen, JA, Viswanathan, V, Reinhart, RMG. High-frequency neuromodulation improves obsessive-compulsive behavior. Nat Med. 2021;27:232–8.10.1038/s41591-020-01173-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreglmann, SR, Wang, D, Peach, RL, et al. Non-invasive suppression of essential tremor via phase-locked disruption of its temporal coherence. Nat Commun. 2021;12:363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanai, R, Chaieb, L, Antal, A, Walsh, V, Paulus, W. Frequency-dependent electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. Curr Biol. 2008;18:1839–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raco, V, Bauer, R, Olenik, M, Brkic, D, Gharabaghi, A. Neurosensory effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2014;7:823–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terney, D, Chaieb, L, Moliadze, V, Antal, A, Paulus, W. Increasing human brain excitability by transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. J Neurosci. 2008;28:14147–55.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4248-08.2008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fertonani, A, Pirulli, C, Miniussi, C. Random noise stimulation improves neuroplasticity in perceptual learning. J Neurosci. 2011;31:15416–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deans, JK, Powell, AD, Jefferys, JGR. Sensitivity of coherent oscillations in rat hippocampus to AC electric fields. J Physiol. 2007;583:555–65.10.1113/jphysiol.2007.137711CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fröhlich, F, McCormick, DA. Endogenous electric fields may guide neocortical network activity. Neuron. 2010;67:129–43.10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reato, D, Rahman, A, Bikson, M, Parra, LC. Low-intensity electrical stimulation affects network dynamics by modulating population rate and spike timing. J Neurosci. 2010;30:15067–79.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2059-10.2010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stacey, WC, Durand, DM. Stochastic resonance improves signal detection in hippocampal CA1 neurons. J Neurophysiol. 2000;83:1394–402.10.1152/jn.2000.83.3.1394CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, F, Ward, LM, Sannita, WG. Stochastic resonance and sensory information processing: a tutorial and review of application. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115:267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miniussi, C, Ruzzoli, M. Transcranial stimulation and cognition. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;116:739–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miniussi, C, Harris, JA, Ruzzoli, M. Modelling non-invasive brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:1702–12.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaieb, L, Paulus, W, Antal, A. Evaluating aftereffects of short-duration transcranial random noise stimulation on cortical excitability. Neural Plast. 2011;2011:105927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prichard, G, Weiller, C, Fritsch, B, Reis, J. Effects of different electrical brain stimulation protocols on subcomponents of motor skill learning. Brain Stimul. 2014;7:532–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moliadze, V, Atalay, D, Antal, A, Paulus, W. Close to threshold transcranial electrical stimulation preferentially activates inhibitory networks before switching to excitation with higher intensities. Brain Stimul. 2012;5:505–11.10.1016/j.brs.2011.11.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laczó, B, Antal, A, Rothkegel, H, Paulus, W. Increasing human leg motor cortex excitability by transcranial high frequency random noise stimulation. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32:403–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Romanska, A, Rezlescu, C, Susilo, T, Duchaine, B, Banissy, MJ. High-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation enhances perception of facial identity. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25:4334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prete, G, D’Anselmo, A, Tommasi, L, Brancucci, A. Modulation of the dichotic right ear advantage during bilateral but not unilateral transcranial random noise stimulation. Brain Cogn. 2018;123:81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, K, De Ridder, D, Vanneste, S. The differential effect of low- versus high-frequency random noise stimulation in the treatment of tinnitus. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233:1433–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palm, U, Chalah, MA, Padberg, F, et al. Effects of transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) on affect, pain and attention in multiple sclerosis. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016;34:189–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Moret, B, Donato, R, Nucci, M, Cona, G, Campana, G. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS): a wide range of frequencies is needed for increasing cortical excitability. Sci Rep. 2019;9:15150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lema, A, Carvalho, S, Fregni, F, Gonçalves, ÓF, Leite, J. The effects of direct current stimulation and random noise stimulation on attention networks. Sci Rep. 2021;11:6201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breit, S, Kupferberg, A, Rogler, G, Hasler, G. Vagus nerve as modulator of the brain–gut axis in psychiatric and inflammatory disorders. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:44.10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00044CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González, HFJ, Yengo-Kahn, A, Englot, DJ. Vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019;30:219–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englot, DJ. A modern epilepsy surgery treatment algorithm: incorporating traditional and emerging technologies. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;80:6874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Menachem, E, Mañon-Espaillat, R, Ristanovic, R, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of partial seizures: 1. A controlled study of effect on seizures. First International Vagus nerve stimulation study group. Epilepsia. 1994;35:616–26.10.1111/j.1528-1157.1994.tb02482.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handforth, A, DeGiorgio, CM, Schachter, SC, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation therapy for partial-onset seizures: a randomized active-control trial. Neurology. 1998;51:4855.10.1212/WNL.51.1.48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze-Bonhage, A. Brain stimulation as a neuromodulatory epilepsy therapy. Seizure. 2017;44:169–75.10.1016/j.seizure.2016.10.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peuker, ET, Filler, TJ. The nerve supply of the human auricle. Clin Anat. 2002;15:35–7.10.1002/ca.1089CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellrich, J. Transcutaneous auricular Vagus nerve stimulation: J Clin Neurophysiol. 2019;36:437–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreuzer, PM, Landgrebe, M, Husser, O, et al. Transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation: retrospective assessment of cardiac safety in a pilot study. Front Psychiatry. 2012;3:70.Google ScholarPubMed
Busch, V, Zeman, F, Heckel, A, Menne, F, Ellrich, J, Eichhammer, P. The effect of transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation on pain perception – an experimental study. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:202–9.10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colzato, LS, Wolters, G, Peifer, C. Transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) modulates flow experience. Exp Brain Res. 2018;236:253–7.10.1007/s00221-017-5123-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badran, BW, Yu, AB, Adair, D, et al. Laboratory administration of transcutaneous auricular Vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS): technique, targeting, and considerations. J Vis Exp. 2019:58984.Google ScholarPubMed
Clancy, JA, Mary, DA, Witte, KK, Greenwood, JP, Deuchars, SA, Deuchars, J. Non-invasive Vagus nerve stimulation in healthy humans reduces sympathetic nerve activity. Brain Stimul. 2014;7:871–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steenbergen, L, Sellaro, R, Stock, A-K, Verkuil, B, Beste, C, Colzato, LS. Transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) enhances response selection during action cascading processes. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;25:773–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burger, AM, Van der Does, W, Thayer, JF, Brosschot, JF, Verkuil, B. Transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation reduces spontaneous but not induced negative thought intrusions in high worriers. Biol Psychol. 2019;142:80–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonino, D, Teixeira, AL, Maia-Lopes, PM, et al. Non-invasive Vagus nerve stimulation acutely improves spontaneous cardiac baroreflex sensitivity in healthy young men: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2017;10:875–81.10.1016/j.brs.2017.05.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burger, AM, Van Diest, I, Van der Does, W, et al. The effect of transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation on fear generalization and subsequent fear extinction. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2019;161:192201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suk, WC, Kim, SJ, Chang, DS, Lee, HY. Characteristics of stimulus intensity in transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation for Chronic Tinnitus. J Int Adv Otol. 2018;14:267–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Hein, E, Nowak, M, Kiess, O, et al. Auricular transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in depressed patients: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Neural Transm. 2013;120:821–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Capone, F, Miccinilli, S, Pellegrino, G, et al. Transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation combined with robotic rehabilitation improves upper limb function after Stroke. Neural Plast. 2017;2017:7876507.10.1155/2017/7876507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamer, HM, Bauer, S. Lessons learned from transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS). Epilepsy Res. 2019;153:83–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaut, O, Janocha, L, Weismüller, TJ, Wüllner, U. Transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation improves gastroenteric complaints in Parkinson’s disease patients. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;45:449–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fallgatter, AJ, Neuhauser, B, Herrmann, MJ, et al. Far field potentials from the brain stem after transcutaneous Vagus nerve stimulation. J Neural Transm. 2003;110:1437–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legon, W, Sato, TF, Opitz, A, et al. Transcranial focused ultrasound modulates the activity of primary somatosensory cortex in humans. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:322–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beisteiner, R, Matt, E, Fan, C, et al. Transcranial pulse stimulation with ultrasound in Alzheimer’s disease—a new navigated focal brain therapy. Adv Sci. 2020;7:1902583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, RC, Day, BL. Probing the human vestibular system with galvanic stimulation. J Appl Physiol. 2004;96:2301–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulavara, AP, Kofman, IS, De Dios, YE, et al. Using low levels of stochastic vestibular stimulation to improve locomotor stability. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015;9:117.10.3389/fnsys.2015.00117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tran, S, Shafiee, M, Jones, CB, et al. Subthreshold stochastic vestibular stimulation induces complex multi-planar effects during standing in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:1180–2.10.1016/j.brs.2018.04.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inukai, Y, Saito, K, Sasaki, R, et al. Comparison of three non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation methods for increasing cortical excitability. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1: Different modes of noninvasive brain stimulation: GVS: Galvanic vestibular stimulation; tACS: transcranial alternating current stimulation; TBS: theta-burst stimulation; tDCS: transcranial direct current stimulation; TMS: transcranial magnetic stimulation; tRNS: transcranial random noise stimulation, TUS: transcranial ultrasound stimulation; VNS: vagal nerve stimulation.

Figure 1

Table 1: Key features of different modes of NIBS

Figure 2

Figure 2: Schematic representation of the transcranial magnetic stimulation demonstrating the magnetic field generated with the magnetic coil placed over the hand area of the primary motor cortex. This, in turn, induces electrical current to activate cortical circuits (lightning bolts indicating the electromagnetic pulses) leading to activation of corticospinal neurons and subsequently and alpha motor neurons in the spinal cord that innervate the muscle of interest (first dorsal interosseous muscle). This leads to motor evoked potential recorded with surface electromyography.

Figure 3

Figure 3: Schematic representation of the transcranial direct (tDCS) and alternating (tACS) current stimulation: (A) tDCS: transcranial direct current stimulation showing anodal and cathodal electrodes placed over bifrontal regions and the graph below plots stimulation intensity overtime demonstrating that the intensity ramps up and down, and the intensity provided over the stipulated time. (B) tACS: transcranial alternating current stimulation showing headband containing electrodes and the graph below shows that the stimulation intensities vary in a sinusoidal manner overtime with the alternating polarity of current applied.

Figure 4

Figure 4: Schematic representation of the cascades of events involved in long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD). Different neurotransmitters are involved in these cascades. Different neurotransmitter and their receptors are shown in yellow rectangular boxes. Glutamate acting through N-methyl D-Aspartate, dopamine through D1, adenosine through A2A, and acetylcholine through muscarinic receptors leads to LTP. On the other hand, glutamate acting through metabotropic receptors, dopamine through both D1 and D2 receptors, and cholinergic activation lead to LTD. Different changes occur depending on the rate of increase of postsynaptic calcium (Ca2+). The rapid influx of Ca2+ preferentially promotes binding of Ca2+ to the C-terminal of calmodulin, activating the kinase pathways. These reactions lead to an increase in AMPA receptor density on the postsynaptic membrane resulting in LTP. On the other hand, slower release of Ca2+ leads to Ca2+ binding to the N-terminal of calmodulin, activating the phosphatase pathways. This leads to a decrease in AMPA receptor density on the postsynaptic membrane, resulting in LTD. (Adapted from Udupa K and Chen R, Motor Cortical Plasticity in Parkinson’s Disease, Front. Neurol. 4 [2013].)

Figure 5

Figure 5: Illustration of transcutaneous auricular vagal nerve stimulation showing the locations of the stimulating electrodes over the auricle which send impulses to the brainstem, frontal, parietal, and other subcortical regions through the auricular branch of the vagus and its neuronal connections. The stimulation current figure indicates the stimulation parameters, and the bottom figure shows a portable stimulator which generates the impulses with specific stimulation parameters with a wireless design.