38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cutaneous perception thresholds of electrical stimulation methods: Comparison of tDCS and tRNS

      , ,
      Clinical Neurophysiology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Controlled blinded studies using transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) paradigms need a validated sham stimulation paradigm since an itching or tingling sensation on the skin surface under the electrode can be associated with current flow. Here we investigated the skin perception thresholds of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) for current intensities ranging from 200 to 2000μA and additional non-stimulation trials using a motor cortex-contralateral orbit montage in three different healthy subject groups: subjects naïve to tES methods, subjects with previous experience with these techniques and investigators, who use these methods in their research. Taking the whole sample into consideration the 50% perception threshold for both tDCS conditions was at 400μA while this threshold was at 1200μA in the case of tRNS. Anodal and cathodal tDCS are indistinguishable regarding sites of perception. Experienced investigators show a significantly higher anodal stimulation detection rate when compared to the naïve group, furthermore investigators performed significantly better than naïve subjects in non-stimulation discrimination. tRNS has the advantage of higher cutaneous perception thresholds and lower response rates in when compared with tDCS. Further investigation in blinding methods (such as placebo itching) is warranted in order to improve sham control. As tRNS has been shown to have similar aftereffects as anodal tDCS, this finding points to the application of tRNS as a possible alternative with a better blinding control. Copyright © 2010 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Clinical Neurophysiology
          Clinical Neurophysiology
          Elsevier BV
          13882457
          November 2010
          November 2010
          : 121
          : 11
          : 1908-1914
          Article
          10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.020
          20471313
          bea0e8e7-3de6-45e5-8450-10eeee9f3cb4
          © 2010

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content2,254

          Cited by59