-
Neuromodulation : Journal of the... Dec 2023Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has been one of numerous investigation methods used for their potential to modulate brain oscillations; however, such... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has been one of numerous investigation methods used for their potential to modulate brain oscillations; however, such investigations have given contradictory results and a lack of standardization.
OBJECTIVES
In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the potential of tACS to modulate alpha spectral power. The secondary outcome was the identification of tACS methodologic key parameters, adverse effects, and sensations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Studies in healthy adults who were receiving active and sham tACS intervention or any differential condition were included. The main outcome assessed was the increase/decrease of alpha spectral power through either electroencephalography or magnetoencephalography. Secondary outcomes were methodologic parameters, sensation reporting, and adverse effects. Risks of bias and the study quality were assessed with the Cochrane assessment tool.
RESULTS
We obtained 1429 references, and 20 met the selection criteria. A statistically significant alpha-power increase was observed in nine studies using continuous tACS stimulation and two using intermittent tACS stimulation set at a frequency within the alpha range. A statistically significant alpha-power increase was observed in three more studies using a stimulation frequency outside the alpha range. Heterogeneity among stimulation parameters was recognized. Reported adverse effects were mild. The implementation of double blind was identified as challenging using tACS, in part owing to electrical artifacts generated by stimulation on the recorded signal.
CONCLUSIONS
Most assessed studies reported that tACS has the potential to modulate brain alpha power. The optimization of this noninvasive brain stimulation method is of interest mostly for its potential clinical applications with neurological conditions associated with perturbations in alpha brain activity. However, more research efforts are needed to standardize optimal parameters to achieve lasting modulation effects, develop methodologic alternatives to reduce experimental bias, and improve the quality of studies using tACS to modulate brain activity.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Alpha Rhythm; Electroencephalography; Brain; Sensation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36725385
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.12.007 -
Neuromodulation : Journal of the... May 2024Spinal neurostimulation is a therapy for otherwise intractable chronic pain. Spinal neurostimulation includes stimulation of the spinal cord (SCS), dorsal root ganglion... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Spinal neurostimulation is a therapy for otherwise intractable chronic pain. Spinal neurostimulation includes stimulation of the spinal cord (SCS), dorsal root ganglion (DRGS), and dorsal root entry zone (DREZS). New paresthesia-free neurostimulation paradigms may rely on different mechanisms of action from those of conventional tonic neurostimulation. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the existing knowledge on the effect of spinal neurostimulation on somatosensory processing in patients with chronic pain. We therefore reviewed the existing literature on the effect of various spinal neurostimulation paradigms on the supraspinal somatosensory evoked response (SER).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Multiple scientific data bases were searched for studies that assessed the effect of spinal neurostimulation on the supraspinal SER, evoked by painful or nonpainful peripheral stimuli in patients with chronic pain. We found 205 studies, of which 24 were included. Demographic data, study design, and study outcome were extracted.
RESULTS
Of the 24 included studies, 23 used electroencephalography to assess the SER; one study used magnetoencephalography. Fifteen studies evaluated tonic SCS; six studies (also) evaluated paresthesia-free paradigms; three studies evaluated the effect of tonic DRGS or DREZS. Sixteen studies used nonpainful stimuli to elicit the SER, 14 observed a decreased SER amplitude. Ten studies used painful stimuli to elicit the SER, yielding mixed results.
DISCUSSION
The included studies suggest that both paresthesia-based and paresthesia-free spinal neurostimulation paradigms can decrease (part of) the SER elicited by a nonpainful peripheral stimulus. The observed SER amplitude reduction likely is the effect of various spinal and supraspinal mechanisms of spinal neurostimulation that also contribute to pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS
Spinal neurostimulation modulates the processing of a peripherally applied nonpainful stimulus. For painful stimuli, the results are not conclusive. It is not yet clear whether paresthesia-free neurostimulation affects the SER differently from paresthesia-based neurostimulation.
PubMed: 38752944
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2024.04.003