Systematic assessment of duration and intensity of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on primary motor cortex excitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the initial demonstration of linear effects of stimulation duration and intensity on the strength of after-effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), few studies have systematically assessed how varying these parameters modulates corticospinal excitability. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the effects of anodal tDCS on corticospinal excitability at two stimulation intensities (1 mA, 2 mA) and durations (10 min, 20 min), and determine the value of several variables in predicting response. Two groups of 20 individuals received, in two separate sessions, 1 and 2 mA anodal tDCS (left primary motor cortex (M1)-right supra-orbital montage) for either 10- or 20-min. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered over left M1 and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the contralateral hand were recorded prior to tDCS and every 5 min for 20-min post-tDCS. The following predictive variables were evaluated: I-wave recruitment, stimulation intensity, baseline M1 excitability and inter-trial MEP variability. Results show that anodal tDCS failed to significantly modulate corticospinal excitability in all conditions. Furthermore, low response rates were identified across all parameter combinations. No baseline measure was significantly correlated with increases in MEP amplitude. However, a decrease in inter-trial MEP variability was linked to response to anodal tDCS. In conclusion, the present findings are consistent with recent reports showing high levels of inter-subject variability in the neurophysiological response to tDCS, which may partly explain inconsistent group results. Furthermore, the level of variability in the neurophysiological outcome measure, i.e. MEPs, appears to be related to response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".