Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:39:02.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transcranial direct current stimulation: Adverse effects and the efficacy of a commonly utilised sham protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

A. Kortteenniemi ,
T. Ali-Sisto ,
J. Wikgren  and
S. Lehto
A. Kortteenniemi
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Department of Psychiatry, Kuopio, Finland
T. Ali-Sisto
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Department of Psychiatry, Kuopio, Finland
J. Wikgren
Affiliation:
Centre for Interdisciplinary Brain Research, University of Jyväskylä, Department of Psychology, Jyväskylä, Finland
S. Lehto
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Department of Psychiatry, Kuopio, Finland

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising neuromodulation method that has, for example, been used to treat depression. Nevertheless, the adverse effects of tDCS and the validity of the current standard tDCS sham protocols have received limited attention.

Objectives

To evaluate the extent and types of tDCS adverse effects and to assess the reliability of sham stimulation as a control procedure for tDCS in a double-blind setting.

Aims

To compare adverse effects between tDCS and sham stimulation groups, and to determine how well the participants and the experimenter are able to distinguish tDCS from sham stimulation.

Methods

A sample of healthy volunteers received a 20-minute session of either tDCS (n = 41; 2 mA) or sham stimulation (n = 41; ramp up 15 s, ramp down 15 s; no current in between). The anode was placed over F3 and cathode over F4. Both the participants and the experimenter reported immediate adverse effects and the perceived likelihood for the participant to receive tDCS. Analyses were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results

The tDCS group reported more erythema compared with the sham group (P = 0.016, Cohen's D = 0.444). No other significant differences in adverse effects were observed. In the tDCS group, both the participants (P = 0.034, Cohen's D = 0.612) and the experimenter (P = 0.006, Cohen's D = 0.674) reported a higher perceived likelihood of the participant receiving tDCS than in the sham group.

Conclusions

tDCS has only modest adverse effects. Nevertheless, the current standard sham protocol appears insufficient.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Type
e-Poster Walk: Psychosurgery & stimulation methods (ECT, TMS, VNS, DBS) and psychophysiology
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 41 , Issue S1: Abstract of the 25th European Congress of Psychiatry , April 2017 , pp. S374
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2017
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.