Abstract
Background Non-invasive brain stimulation methods for modulating brain activity via transcranial technologies like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are increasingly prevalent to investigate the relationship between modulated brain regions and stimulation outcomes. However, the inter-individual variability of tDCS has made it challenging to detect intervention effects at the group level. Collecting multiple modalities of magnetic resonance imaging data (i.e., structural and functional MRI) helps to investigate how dose-response ultimately shapes brain function in response to tDCS.
Method We collected data in a randomized, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial with two parallel arms. Sixty participants with MUD were randomly assigned to sham or active tDCS (n=30 per group, 2 mA, 20 minutes, anode/cathode over F4/Fp1). Structural and functional MRI (including high-resolution T1 and T2-weighted MRI, resting-state fMRI, and methamphetamine cue-reactivity task with meth versus neutral cues) were collected immediately before and after tDCS. T1 and T2-weighted MRI data were used to generate head models for each individual to simulate electric fields. Associations between electric fields (dose) and changes in brain function (response) were investigated at four different levels: (1) voxel level, (2) regional level (atlas-based parcellation), (3) cluster level (active clusters in the contrast of interest), and (4) network level (both task-based and resting-state networks).
Result At the (1) voxel-level, (2) regional level, and (3) cluster level, our results showed no significant correlation between changes in the functional activity and electric fields. However, (4) at the network level, a significant negative correlation was found between the electric field and ReHo in the default mode network (r=-0.46 (medium effect size), p corrected=0.018). For the network-level analysis of task-based fMRI data, frontoparietal connectivity showed a positive significant correlation with the electric field in the frontal stimulation site (r=0.41 (medium effect size), p corrected=0.03).
Conclusion The proposed pipeline provides a methodological framework to analyze tDCS effects in terms of dose-response relationships at four different levels to directly link the electric field (dose) variability to the variability of the neural response to tDCS. The results suggest that network-based analysis might be a better approach to provide novel insights into the dependency of the neuromodulatory effects of tDCS on the brain’s regional current dose in each individual. Dose-response integration can be informative for dose optimization/customization or predictive/treatment-response biomarker extraction in future brain stimulation studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT03382379
Clinical Protocols
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03382379
Funding Statement
This study was supported with an institutional fund supported by Warren K Family and Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data that is presented in this paper is collected in a trial reviewed and accepted by Western IRB (2017-005-01) and registered as NCT03382379 in clinicaltrials.gov.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Figures were in .npg format and the quality of the online version was not good enough. All figures were transformed into the .jpg format.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
