| Title |
Considering the influence of stimulation parameters on the effect of conventional and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Expert Review of Medical Devices, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1586/17434440.2016.1153968 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors | |
| Abstract |
Recently, techniques to non-invasively modulate specific brain areas gained popularity in the form of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation. These non-invasive techniques have already shown promising outcomes in various studies with healthy subjects as well as patient populations. Despite widespread dissemination of tDCS, there remain significant unknowns about the influence of a diverse number of tDCS parameters (e.g. polarity, size, position of electrodes & duration of stimulation) in inducing neurophysiological and behavioral effects. This article explores both techniques starting with the history of tDCS, to the differences between conventional tDCS and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation, the underlying physiological mechanism, the (in)direct effects, the applications of tDCS with varying parameters, the efficacy, the safety issues and the opportunities for future research. |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 21 | 22% |
| Psychology | 18 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 33% |