Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation

Background: Noninvasive transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) research has been plagued with inconsistent effects. Recent work has suggested neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variability may alter tES efficacy. However, direct evidence is limited. Objective: We have previously replicated ef...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Theodore P. Zanto, Kevin T. Jones, Avery E. Ostrand, Wan-Yu Hsu, Richard Campusano, Adam Gazzaley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-09-01
Series:Brain Stimulation
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X21002199
_version_ 1818738390320807936
author Theodore P. Zanto
Kevin T. Jones
Avery E. Ostrand
Wan-Yu Hsu
Richard Campusano
Adam Gazzaley
author_facet Theodore P. Zanto
Kevin T. Jones
Avery E. Ostrand
Wan-Yu Hsu
Richard Campusano
Adam Gazzaley
author_sort Theodore P. Zanto
collection DOAJ
description Background: Noninvasive transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) research has been plagued with inconsistent effects. Recent work has suggested neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variability may alter tES efficacy. However, direct evidence is limited. Objective: We have previously replicated effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on improving multitasking ability in young adults. Here, we attempt to assess whether these stimulation parameters have comparable effects in older adults (aged 60–80 years), which is a population known to have greater variability in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. It is hypothesized that this variability in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology will be predictive of tACS efficacy. Methods: We conducted a pre-registered study where tACS was applied above the prefrontal cortex (between electrodes F3-F4) while participants were engaged in multitasking. Participants were randomized to receive either 6-Hz (theta) tACS for 26.67 min daily for three days (80 min total; Long Exposure Theta group), 6-Hz tACS for 5.33 min daily (16-min total; Short Exposure Theta group), or 1-Hz tACS for 26.67 min (80 min total; Control group). To account for neuroanatomy, magnetic resonance imaging data was used to form individualized models of the tACS-induced electric field (EF) within the brain. To account for neurophysiology, electroencephalography data was used to identify individual peak theta frequency. Results: Results indicated that only in the Long Theta group, performance change was correlated with modeled EF and peak theta frequency. Together, modeled EF and peak theta frequency accounted for 54%–65% of the variance in tACS-related performance improvements, which sustained for a month. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the importance of individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology in tACS research and help account for inconsistent effects across studies.
first_indexed 2024-12-18T01:08:11Z
format Article
id doaj.art-748fa31d05db4e03ab81b112a338d4b7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1935-861X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-18T01:08:11Z
publishDate 2021-09-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Brain Stimulation
spelling doaj.art-748fa31d05db4e03ab81b112a338d4b72022-12-21T21:26:11ZengElsevierBrain Stimulation1935-861X2021-09-0114513171329Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulationTheodore P. Zanto0Kevin T. Jones1Avery E. Ostrand2Wan-Yu Hsu3Richard Campusano4Adam Gazzaley5Department of Neurology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Neuroscape, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Corresponding author. Department of Neurology, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.Department of Neurology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Neuroscape, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USADepartment of Neurology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Neuroscape, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USADepartment of Neurology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USADepartment of Neurology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Neuroscape, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USADepartment of Neurology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Neuroscape, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Departments of Physiology and Psychiatry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USABackground: Noninvasive transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) research has been plagued with inconsistent effects. Recent work has suggested neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variability may alter tES efficacy. However, direct evidence is limited. Objective: We have previously replicated effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on improving multitasking ability in young adults. Here, we attempt to assess whether these stimulation parameters have comparable effects in older adults (aged 60–80 years), which is a population known to have greater variability in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. It is hypothesized that this variability in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology will be predictive of tACS efficacy. Methods: We conducted a pre-registered study where tACS was applied above the prefrontal cortex (between electrodes F3-F4) while participants were engaged in multitasking. Participants were randomized to receive either 6-Hz (theta) tACS for 26.67 min daily for three days (80 min total; Long Exposure Theta group), 6-Hz tACS for 5.33 min daily (16-min total; Short Exposure Theta group), or 1-Hz tACS for 26.67 min (80 min total; Control group). To account for neuroanatomy, magnetic resonance imaging data was used to form individualized models of the tACS-induced electric field (EF) within the brain. To account for neurophysiology, electroencephalography data was used to identify individual peak theta frequency. Results: Results indicated that only in the Long Theta group, performance change was correlated with modeled EF and peak theta frequency. Together, modeled EF and peak theta frequency accounted for 54%–65% of the variance in tACS-related performance improvements, which sustained for a month. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the importance of individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology in tACS research and help account for inconsistent effects across studies.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X21002199Transcranial alternating current stimulationComputational modelingTheta bandMultitasking
spellingShingle Theodore P. Zanto
Kevin T. Jones
Avery E. Ostrand
Wan-Yu Hsu
Richard Campusano
Adam Gazzaley
Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
Brain Stimulation
Transcranial alternating current stimulation
Computational modeling
Theta band
Multitasking
title Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
title_full Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
title_fullStr Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
title_full_unstemmed Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
title_short Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
title_sort individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation
topic Transcranial alternating current stimulation
Computational modeling
Theta band
Multitasking
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X21002199
work_keys_str_mv AT theodorepzanto individualdifferencesinneuroanatomyandneurophysiologypredicteffectsoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT kevintjones individualdifferencesinneuroanatomyandneurophysiologypredicteffectsoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT averyeostrand individualdifferencesinneuroanatomyandneurophysiologypredicteffectsoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT wanyuhsu individualdifferencesinneuroanatomyandneurophysiologypredicteffectsoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT richardcampusano individualdifferencesinneuroanatomyandneurophysiologypredicteffectsoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulation
AT adamgazzaley individualdifferencesinneuroanatomyandneurophysiologypredicteffectsoftranscranialalternatingcurrentstimulation