Feasibility of Interferential and Pulsed Transcranial Electrical Stimulation for Neuromodulation at the Human Scale. Issue 5 (8th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Howell, Bryan; McIntyre, Cameron C.
• Is Part Of: Neuromodulaton. Volume 24:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 843
• Page End: 853
• Publication Date: 2020-03-08
• Subjects: Interferential stimulation -- intersectional pulsed stimulation -- noninvasive neuromodulation -- temporal interference -- transcranial electrical stimulation; Central nervous system -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Central nervous system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1111/ner.13137
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1094-7159

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is a promising tool for modulating neural activity, but tES has poor penetrability and spatiotemporal resolution compared to invasive techniques like deep brain stimulation (DBS). Interferential strategies for alternating‐current stimulation (IF‐tACS) and pulsed/intersectional strategies for transcranial direct‐current stimulation (IS‐tDCS) address some of the limitations of tES, but the comparative advantages and disadvantages of these new techniques is not well understood. This study's objective was to evaluate the suprathreshold and subthreshold membrane dynamics of neurons in response to IF‐tACS and IS‐tDCS. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the biophysics of IF‐tACS and IS‐tDCS using a bioelectric field model of tES. Neural responses were quantified for suprathreshold generation of action potentials in axons and for subthreshold modulation of membrane dynamics in spiking pyramidal neurons. Results: IF‐tACS and IS‐tDCS could not directly activate axons at or below 10 mA, but within this current range, these fields were able to modulate, albeit indirectly, spiking activity in the neuron model. IF‐tACS facilitated phase synchronization similar to tACS, and IS‐tDCS enhanced and suppressed spiking activity similar to tDCS; however, in either case, the modulatory effects of these fields were less potent than their standard counterparts at a matched field intensity. Moreover, neither IF‐tACS nor IS‐tDCS improved the spatial selectivity of their parent strategies. Conclusions: Enhancing the spatiotemporal precision and penetrability of tES with interferential and intersectional strategies is possible at the human scale. However, IF‐tACS or IS‐tDCS will likely require spatial multiplexing with multiple simultaneous sources to counteract their reduced potency, compared to standard techniques, to maintain stimulation currents at tolerable levels.