Abstract
Free full text
Neuroscience: Transcranial devices are not playthings
Controlled investigation of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) for treating neuropsychiatric disorders or for neurorehabilitation should not be confused with improvised devices or practices that apply electricity to the brain without reference to established protocols (see Nature 498, 271-272; 2013). Unorthodox technologies and applications must not be allowed to distort the long-term validation of tDCS.
Experimentation outside established and tested norms may put subjects at risk. In tDCS, the delivered dose of electrical brain stimulation (defined by the waveform and intensity applied) and the electrode size, number and position are all crucial. Safe and effective dose ranges have been established in clinical trials. Patients receiving tDCS do so in a controlled environment, under guidance from institutional ethics review boards and with strict criteria for patient inclusion.
Meddling with the tDCS dose is potentially as dangerous as tampering with a drug’s chemical composition. Painstaking efforts by researchers to understand the risks and benefits of tDCS should never be interpreted as encouraging such practices.
Acknowledgment
D. E. is supported by NICHD of the National Institutes of Health, under award number R01HD069776.
Contributor Information
Marom Bikson, City College of New York, USA, ude.ynuc.yncc@noskib.
Sven Bestjnann, University College London, UK.
Dylan Edwards, Burke–Cornell Medical Research Institute, New York, USA.
Full text links
Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1038/501167b
Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: http://www.nature.com/articles/501167b.pdf
Citations & impact
Impact metrics
Citations of article over time
Alternative metrics
Smart citations by scite.ai
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been
supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1038/501167b
Article citations
The complex landscape of TMS devices: A brief overview.
PLoS One, 18(11):e0292733, 28 Nov 2023
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38015924
Mapping the Landscape of Do-it-Yourself Medicine.
Citiz Sci, 7(1):38, 15 Dec 2022
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 36632334 | PMCID: PMC9830450
Improving the Effect of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS): A Systematic Review.
Front Hum Neurosci, 15:652393, 07 Jun 2021
Cited by: 18 articles | PMID: 34163340 | PMCID: PMC8215166
Review Free full text in Europe PMC
Critical Review of Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Challenges for Translation to Clinical Practice.
Front Neurosci, 14:284, 28 Apr 2020
Cited by: 121 articles | PMID: 32410932 | PMCID: PMC7199464
Review Free full text in Europe PMC
Entropy Analysis of High-Definition Transcranial Electric Stimulation Effects on EEG Dynamics.
Brain Sci, 9(8):E208, 20 Aug 2019
Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 31434225 | PMCID: PMC6721406
Go to all (22) article citations
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Neuroscience: Brain stimulation has a long history.
Nature, 500(7464):529, 01 Aug 2013
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 23985862
NEUROSCIENCE. The unknowns of cognitive enhancement.
Science, 350(6259):379-380, 01 Oct 2015
Cited by: 25 articles | PMID: 26494744
Is neuroenhancement by noninvasive brain stimulation a net zero-sum proposition?
Neuroimage, 85 Pt 3:1058-1068, 21 Jul 2013
Cited by: 54 articles | PMID: 23880500 | PMCID: PMC4392930
Review Free full text in Europe PMC