Elsevier

Brain Stimulation

Volume 5, Issue 4, October 2012, Pages 435-453
Brain Stimulation

Review Article
Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: Definition, selection, and reporting practices

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.10.001Get rights and content

Background

The growing use of transcranial electric and magnetic (EM) brain stimulation in basic research and in clinical applications necessitates a clear understanding of what constitutes the dose of EM stimulation and how it should be reported.

Methods

This paper provides fundamental definitions and principles for reporting of dose that encompass any transcranial EM brain stimulation protocol.

Results

The biologic effects of EM stimulation are mediated through an electromagnetic field injected (via electric stimulation) or induced (via magnetic stimulation) in the body. Therefore, transcranial EM stimulation dose ought to be defined by all parameters of the stimulation device that affect the electromagnetic field generated in the body, including the stimulation electrode or coil configuration parameters: shape, size, position, and electrical properties, as well as the electrode or coil current (or voltage) waveform parameters: pulse shape, amplitude, width, polarity, and repetition frequency; duration of and interval between bursts or trains of pulses; total number of pulses; and interval between stimulation sessions and total number of sessions. Knowledge of the electromagnetic field generated in the body may not be sufficient but is necessary to understand the biologic effects of EM stimulation.

Conclusions

We believe that reporting of EM stimulation dose should be guided by the principle of reproducibility: sufficient information about the stimulation parameters should be provided so that the dose can be replicated.

Section snippets

Basic principles of EM stimulation

Though there remain many questions about the mechanisms of neuromodulation by transcranial EM stimulation, fundamentally, stimulation affects neural activity and ultimately behavior through the generation of an electric field and associated electrical currents (current density field) in the head.6, 7 There is evidence that neural activity may also be affected by static magnetic fields.8 Therefore, in our general discussion we refer to an electromagnetic field which subsumes the electric,

Electromagnetic field generation

All transcranial EM stimulation devices consist of two main components: (1) a waveform generator and (2) electrodes or an electromagnet coil positioned on the head. The waveform generator delivers electrical current to the electrodes or coil. In transcranial electric stimulation, scalp surface electrodes inject currents through the head, whereas in magnetic stimulation, currents are induced within the head by the coil. In both cases the result is an electric field (measured in volt/meter or

Biologic effects of EM brain stimulation

The current state of knowledge of the physiologic mechanisms of transcranial EM brain stimulation remains limited. Recent reviews provide valuable summaries of current understanding.38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 We briefly discuss the fundamental aspects of the interaction between electromagnetic fields and neural tissue to establish a rational definition of EM stimulation dose.

At present, it is understood that the main mechanism by which electromagnetic field of the

Dose definition and dose selection

Figure 3 and Table 1 summarize the process of dosing transcranial EM stimulation. The researcher/clinician chooses an EM stimulation device and its settings based on subject-independent knowledge (e.g., scientific hypothesis, mechanisms of action, etiology of disorder, prior research/clinical experience, computational models) and subject-specific data (e.g., age, sex, structural and diffusion MRI, diagnosis, risk factors, treatment history, individual electromagnetic field model, prior EM

Dose parameters

Reporting of EM stimulation dose should be guided by the principle of reproducibility: sufficient information about the stimulation parameters should be provided so that the stimulation dose can be independently replicated or modeled based on this description. No aspect of the EM stimulation device configuration that affects the electromagnetic field should be omitted because the researcher/clinician considers it unimportant for outcome, as subsequent interpretations of the results could

Stimulus waveform generator parameters

The stimulus waveform refers to the current and/or voltage waveform generated by the stimulation source and applied to the stimulating electrodes or coil (see Figure 2 for some examples). The stimulus waveform governs the temporal variation of the electromagnetic field during the stimulation session. For a particular EM stimulation device, some waveform parameters may be fixed, whereas others may be user-adjustable over a given range. The principle of reproducibility dictates that when

Electrode and coil parameters

Another component of the transcranial EM stimulation dose refers to the dimensions, materials, and position of the electrodes or coil. Typically commercial electrodes or coils are used, in which case the manufacturer and part number should be provided in addition to basic information about the electrode/coil physical characteristics. Placement of the electrodes or coil is controlled by the researcher/clinician and should be carefully documented and reported, specifying how the placement was

Measuring/verifying dose

As defined previously, the EM stimulation dose is comprised of the device parameters that affect the electromagnetic field in the brain. Therefore, the EM dose corresponding to particular device configuration and settings can be calibrated and verified independent of the presence of a subject. As stimulation devices remain in use over periods of years and as faults can compromise safety and reproducibility, a basic level of verification and vigilance is warranted. The waveform generator,

Summary metrics

Summary metrics (also known as “composite parameters”4) are defined as quantities that are a function of two or more EM stimulation dose parameters.5 Examples include average electrode current density (defined as electrode current divided by electrode area), which is sometimes used in tDCS and tACS,92 charge per pulse phase that is used to define safety limits,103, 104 and charge rate and total stimulus charge or energy that are used in ECT.12, 105 Summary metrics reduce the information content

Dose selection

Dose selection includes all steps that inform the choice of transcranial EM stimulation dose to be delivered.

Individual anatomic and physiologic data

All relevant, available subject/patient data should be considered in determining the EM dose. These include any biologic factors that affect the stimulation outcome including subject anatomical data (affecting the electromagnetic field distribution; refer to “Electromagnetic field generation”) and physiology (affecting responses to the electromagnetic field; refer to “Biologic effects of EM brain stimulation”). Relevant patient data may include disease cause and information on additional

Dosing relative to individual measures

Transcranial EM stimulation dose is often individualized based on physiologic, cognitive, or behavioral measures. For example, the EM dose may be adjusted relative to evoked physiologic responses and/or a clinical outcome. The motivation for the use of relative dosing is that the absolute EM dose does not fully determine outcome because of variability across individuals. Indeed, a functional measure may be perceived as more accurate than absolute measures because it reflects the net sum of

EM field models

Because the effects of transcranial EM stimulation are thought to result chiefly from the electric and current density fields generated in the head, knowledge of the electric/current density field characteristics can help to select the dose for and/or to interpret a study or a treatment using EM stimulation, and can be useful in optimizing stimulation techniques. There are presently no established techniques for noninvasively measuring in vivo the electric/current density field distribution in

Safety considerations in EM dose determination

Risk/benefit considerations override other aspects of dose selection, and are in the realm of clinical decision making beyond the scope of this paper. After consideration of subject specific risk factors, controlling the EM dose is the primary method to address safety concerns. Conversely, without controlling and documenting the EM dose, it is impossible to ensure subject safety and to accumulate safety data that can inform the development of safety guidelines.

The ability to draw safety

Device artifacts and environmental factors

As discussed in the section on biologic effects of EM brain stimulation, besides effects on neural activity resulting from the intracerebral electromagnetic field, transcranial EM stimulation paradigms may affect brain function via direct extracranial nerve and muscle stimulation and nonelectromagnetic interactions such as sound and scalp pressure. Direct activation of extracranial nerves and muscles is inherently encompassed by the EM dose description, since the EM dose parameters determine

Conclusion

In 2011, there remains no standard for reporting transcranial EM brain stimulation protocols, and adequate information for study reproduction is often omitted. That is a surprising state given that this concept is not new to the literature. In 1988, Weiner and colleagues4 reported that in ECT literature, dose “frequently is not adequately presented to allow the reader to understand the nature and intensity of stimulation delivered” and cited Ulett who, in 1952, complained that from the

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Won Hee Lee for creating Figure 1.

References (149)

  • A. Datta et al.

    Transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with skull defects and skull plates: high-resolution computational FEM study of factors altering cortical current flow

    Neuroimage

    (2010)
  • J.P. Lefaucheur

    Principles of therapeutic use of transcranial and epidural cortical stimulation

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2008)
  • S. Bestmann

    The physiological basis of transcranial magnetic stimulation

    Trends Cogn Sci

    (2008)
  • N. Kato

    Neurophysiological mechanisms of electroconvulsive therapy for depression

    Neurosci Res

    (2009)
  • A. Merkl et al.

    Antidepressant electroconvulsive therapy: mechanism of action, recent advances and limitations

    Exp Neurol

    (2009)
  • D. Wachter et al.

    Transcranial direct current stimulation induces polarity-specific changes of cortical blood perfusion in the rat

    Exp Neurol

    (2011)
  • N.D. Volkow et al.

    Effects of low-field magnetic stimulation on brain glucose metabolism

    Neuroimage

    (2010)
  • K. Martiny et al.

    Transcranial low voltage pulsed electromagnetic fields in patients with treatment-resistant depression

    Biol Psychiatry

    (2010)
  • T.J. Kaptchuk et al.

    Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects?

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2000)
  • W. Paulus et al.

    State of the art: pharmacologic effects on cortical excitability measures tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation

    Brain Stimul

    (2008)
  • L. Koski et al.

    Normative data on changes in transcranial magnetic stimulation measures over a ten hour period

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2005)
  • L.M. Stewart et al.

    Motor and phosphene thresholds: a transcranial magnetic stimulation correlation study

    Neuropsycihologia

    (2001)
  • R. Kanai et al.

    Frequency-dependent electrical stimulation of the visual cortex

    Curr Biol

    (2008)
  • H. Rothkegel et al.

    Breaks during 5Hz rTMS are essential for facilitatory after effects

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2010)
  • J.P. O’Reardon et al.

    Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial

    Biol Psychiatry

    (2007)
  • Y.Z. Huang et al.

    Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex

    Neuron

    (2005)
  • U. Palm et al.

    Skin lesions after treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

    Brain Stimul

    (2008)
  • P.C. Miranda et al.

    What does the ratio of injected current to electrode area tell us about current density in the brain during tDCS?

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2009)
  • P.C. Miranda et al.

    Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2006)
  • V. Moliadze et al.

    Electrode-distance dependent after-effects of transcranial direct and random noise stimulation with extracephalic reference electrodes

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2010)
  • M. Bikson et al.

    Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: role of "return" electrode’s position and size

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2010)
  • Y. Shimojima et al.

    The safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation with deep brain stimulation instruments

    Parkinsonism Relat Disord

    (2010)
  • J. Valls-Sole et al.

    On technical features of neurophysiological equipment and their reliability

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2006)
  • M. Bikson et al.

    Transcranial direct current stimulation for major depression: a general system for quantifying transcranial electrotherapy dosage

    Curr Treat Options Neurol

    (2008)
  • R.D. Weiner et al.

    Reporting of technical parameters in ECT publications: recommendations for authors

    Convuls Ther

    (1988)
  • A.V. Peterchev et al.

    Electroconvulsive therapy stimulus parameters: rethinking dosage

    J ECT

    (2010)
  • T. Wagner et al.

    Noninvasive human brain stimulation

    Annu Rev Biomed Eng

    (2007)
  • P.J. Basser et al.

    New currents in electrical stimulation of excitable tissues

    Annu Rev Biomed Eng

    (2000)
  • A. Oliviero et al.

    Transcranial static magnetic field stimulation of the human motor cortex

    J Physiol

    (2011)
  • R.D. Maxwell

    Electrical factors in electroconvulsive therapy

    Acta Psychiatr Scand

    (1968)
  • H.A. Sackeim et al.

    Physical properties and quantification of the ECT stimulus: I, basic principles

    Convuls Ther

    (1994)
  • J. Ruohonen et al.

    Physical principles for transcranial magnetic stimulation

  • A.V. Peterchev et al.

    A transcranial magnetic stimulator inducing near-rectangular pulses with controllable pulse width (cTMS)

    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng

    (2008)
  • R. Jalinous

    Principles of magnetic stimulator design

  • A.V. Peterchev et al.

    A repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulator with controllable pulse parameters

    J Neural Eng

    (2011)
  • Z.-D. Deng et al.

    Effect of anatomical variability on neural stimulation strength and focality in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and magnetic seizure therapy (MST)

    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc

    (2009)
  • A. Datta et al.

    Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: Improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad

    Brain Stimul

    (2009)
  • A. Thielscher et al.

    Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation

    Neuroimage

    (2010)
  • R. Salvador et al.

    Modeling the electric field induced in a high resolution realistic head model during transcranial current stimulation

    IEEE Eng Med Biol Conf

    (2010)
  • P.C. Miranda et al.

    The electric field induced in the brain by magnetic stimulation: a 3-D finite-element analysis of the effect of tissue heterogeneity and anisotropy

    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng

    (2003)
  • Cited by (0)

    Dr. Peterchev is inventor on Columbia University patents and patent applications on TMS and MST technology licensed to Rogue Research; he has received a research grant from Rogue Research and equipment donations from Magstim, MagVenture, and ANS/St. Jude Medical; he is also supported by NIH grant R01MH091083 and Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Translational Partners grant. Dr. Wagner is the Chief Science Officer of Highland Instruments, a medical device company; he has multiple patents pending related to imaging, brain stimulation, and wound healing. Dr. Miranda is inventor on patents and patent applications on TMS. Dr. Nitsche reported no biomedical financial interests or conflicts of interest. Dr. Paulus is member of the Medical and Scientific advisory board of EBS technologies, and has received equipment support from NeuroConn, Magstim, and MagVenture. Dr. Lisanby has served as Principal Investogator on industry-sponsored research grants to Columbia/RFMH or Duke (Neuronetics [past], Brainsway, ANS/St. Jude Medical, Cyberonics [past]); equipment loans to Columbia or Duke (Magstim, MagVenture); is coinventor on a patent application on TMS technology; is supported by grants from National Institutes of Health (R01MH091083-01, 5U01MH084241-02, 5R01MH060884-09), Stanley Medical Research Institute, and National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression; and has no consultancies, speakers bureau memberships, board affiliations, or equity holdings in related industries. Dr. Pascual-Leone serves on the scientific advisory board of Starlab, Neuronix, Nexstim, and Neosync, and holds intellectual property on the integration of TMS with EEG and MRI; he was supported by grants from the National Center for Research Resources: Harvard-Thorndike General Clinical Research Center at BIDMC (NCRR MO1 RR01032) and Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (UL1 RR025758), NIH grant K24 RR018875 and grants from the R. J. Goldberg Foundation, Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation, and Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Bikson is inventor on multiple patents on brain stimulation technology (CUNY) and is co-founder of Soterix Medical Inc.; and is supported by grant from the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation and NIH (NIGMS 41341-03-30, NIMH 41771-00-01).

    View full text