Back

Assessing adverse effects and unspecific effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS)

Zhao, H.; Horn, U.; Freund, M.; Bujanow, A.; Gundlach, C.; Hartwigsen, G.; Eippert, F.

2023-12-14 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.12.14.571694 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTranscutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a relatively recent method for non-invasively modulating neuronal activity in the human spinal cord. Despite its growing prominence, comprehensive studies addressing its potential adverse effects (AEs) and unspecific effects (UEs) are lacking. ObjectiveIn this study, we conducted a systematic investigation into the potential AEs and UEs of tsDCS in healthy volunteers. MethodsWe used a randomized double-blind within-participant design, employing anodal, cathodal and sham tsDCS of the thoracolumbar spinal cord. Our approach involved a newly-developed structured questionnaire (to assess subjectively-reported AEs) in combination with tsDCS-concurrent recording of skin conductance, cardiac and respiratory activity (to assess UEs in bodily state). ResultsThe most frequently participant-reported AEs were sensations of burning, tingling, and itching, although they were largely described as mild; skin redness (experimenter-reported) occurred even more frequently. Importantly, when comparing AEs between active and sham tsDCS via frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches, the results were largely in favour of no difference between conditions (with the exception of skin redness). A similar picture emerged for most UE metrics, suggesting that tsDCS does not induce changes in bodily state, at least as measured by our autonomic nervous system metrics. ConclusionWe believe that the strategy employed here could serve as a starting point for a systematic AE and UE assessment in clinical populations, longitudinal designs and when stimulating different spinal sites. Taken together, our results contribute to assessing the tolerability, safety and specificity of tsDCS, in order to further the investigation of spinal cord function in health and disease.

Published in Imaging Neuroscience (predicted rank #15) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.