Parametric study of transcranial alternating current stimulation for brain alpha power modulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial alternating current stimulation, a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, has been used to increase alpha (8-12 Hz) power, the latter being associated with various brain functions and states. Heterogeneity among stimulation parameters across studies makes it difficult to implement reliable transcranial alternating current stimulation protocols, explaining the absence of consensus on optimal stimulation parameters to modulate the alpha rhythm. This project documents the differential impact of controlling for key transcranial alternating current stimulation parameters, namely the intensity, the frequency and the stimulation site (anterior versus posterior). Phase 1:20 healthy participants underwent 4 different stimulation conditions. In each experimental condition, stimulation via 2 electrodes was delivered for 20 min. Stimulation conditions were administered at PO7-PO8 or F3-F4 at individual's alpha frequency, or at individual's theta frequency or sham. Stimulation intensity was set according to each participant's comfort following a standardized unpleasantness scale (≤ 40 out of 100) and could not exceed 6 mA. All conditions were counterbalanced. Phase 2: participants who tolerated higher intensity of stimulation (4-6 mA) underwent alpha-frequency stimulation applied over PO7-PO8 at 1 mA to investigate within-subject modulation of stimulation response according to stimulation intensity. Whether set over posterior or anterior cortical sites, alpha-frequency stimulation showed greater increase in alpha power relative to stimulation at theta frequency and sham stimulation. Posterior alpha-frequency stimulation showed a greater increase in alpha power relative to the adjacent frequency bands over frontal and occipito-parietal brain areas. Low intensity (1 mA) posterior alpha stimulation showed a similar increase in alpha power than at high (4-6 mA) intensity when measured immediately after stimulation. However, when tested at 60 min or 120 min, low intensity stimulation was associated with significantly superior alpha power increase relative to high intensity stimulation. This study shows that posterior individual's alpha frequency stimulation at higher intensities is well tolerated but fails to increase stimulation aftereffects recorded within 2 h of stimulation on brain oscillations of the corresponding frequency band. In sharp contrast, stimulating at 1 mA (regardless of phosphene generation or sensory perception) effectively and selectively modulates alpha power within that 2-h time window, thus validating that it as a reliable stimulus intensity for future studies. This study also shows that posterior alpha-frequency stimulation preferentially modulates endogenous brain oscillations of the corresponding frequency band. Moreover, our data suggest that posterior alpha-frequency transcranial alternating current stimulation is a reliable and precise non-invasive brain stimulation technique for persistent modulation of both frontal and occipito-parietal alpha power.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".