Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation
Temporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamenta...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-09-01
|
| Series: | Brain Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/13/9/1317 |
| _version_ | 1797581005325860864 |
|---|---|
| author | Zonghao Xin Yoshifumi Abe Akihiro Kuwahata Kenji F. Tanaka Masaki Sekino |
| author_facet | Zonghao Xin Yoshifumi Abe Akihiro Kuwahata Kenji F. Tanaka Masaki Sekino |
| author_sort | Zonghao Xin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Temporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamental mechanisms, and research has previously been restricted to numerical simulations and immunohistology without considering the acute in vivo response of the neural circuit. To address the characterization and understanding of the mechanisms underlying the approach, we investigated instantaneous brainwide activation patterns in response to invasive interferential current (IFC) stimulation compared with low-frequency alternative current stimulation (ACS). Results demonstrated that IFC stimulation is capable of inducing regional neural responses and modulating brain networks; however, the activation threshold for significantly recruiting a neural response using IFC was higher (at least twofold) than stimulation via alternating current, and the spatial distribution of the activation signal was restricted. A distinct blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) response pattern was observed, which could be accounted for by the activation of distinct types of cells, such as inhibitory cells, by IFC. These results suggest that IFC stimulation might not be as efficient as conventional brain modulation methods, especially when considering TI stimulation as a potential alternative for stimulating subcortical brain areas. Therefore, we argue that a future transcranial application of TI on human subjects should take these implications into account and consider other stimulation effects using this technique. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T22:57:55Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0b07ef27ab1f4e8fba191b5e909c0e0b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-3425 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T22:57:55Z |
| publishDate | 2023-09-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Brain Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-0b07ef27ab1f4e8fba191b5e909c0e0b2023-11-19T09:49:14ZengMDPI AGBrain Sciences2076-34252023-09-01139131710.3390/brainsci13091317Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current StimulationZonghao Xin0Yoshifumi Abe1Akihiro Kuwahata2Kenji F. Tanaka3Masaki Sekino4Department of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, JapanDivision of Brain Sciences, Institute for Advanced Medical Research, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160-8582, JapanDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8579, JapanDivision of Brain Sciences, Institute for Advanced Medical Research, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160-8582, JapanDepartment of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, JapanTemporal interference (TI) stimulation, which utilizes multiple external electric fields with amplitude modulation for neural modulation, has emerged as a potential noninvasive brain stimulation methodology. However, the clinical application of TI stimulation is inhibited by its uncertain fundamental mechanisms, and research has previously been restricted to numerical simulations and immunohistology without considering the acute in vivo response of the neural circuit. To address the characterization and understanding of the mechanisms underlying the approach, we investigated instantaneous brainwide activation patterns in response to invasive interferential current (IFC) stimulation compared with low-frequency alternative current stimulation (ACS). Results demonstrated that IFC stimulation is capable of inducing regional neural responses and modulating brain networks; however, the activation threshold for significantly recruiting a neural response using IFC was higher (at least twofold) than stimulation via alternating current, and the spatial distribution of the activation signal was restricted. A distinct blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) response pattern was observed, which could be accounted for by the activation of distinct types of cells, such as inhibitory cells, by IFC. These results suggest that IFC stimulation might not be as efficient as conventional brain modulation methods, especially when considering TI stimulation as a potential alternative for stimulating subcortical brain areas. Therefore, we argue that a future transcranial application of TI on human subjects should take these implications into account and consider other stimulation effects using this technique.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/13/9/1317interferential current stimulationalternating current stimulationtemporal interferencefMRI |
| spellingShingle | Zonghao Xin Yoshifumi Abe Akihiro Kuwahata Kenji F. Tanaka Masaki Sekino Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation Brain Sciences interferential current stimulation alternating current stimulation temporal interference fMRI |
| title | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
| title_full | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
| title_fullStr | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
| title_short | Brain Response to Interferential Current Compared with Alternating Current Stimulation |
| title_sort | brain response to interferential current compared with alternating current stimulation |
| topic | interferential current stimulation alternating current stimulation temporal interference fMRI |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/13/9/1317 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zonghaoxin brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT yoshifumiabe brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT akihirokuwahata brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT kenjiftanaka brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation AT masakisekino brainresponsetointerferentialcurrentcomparedwithalternatingcurrentstimulation |