Search

Background Theta burst stimulation (TBS) and quadripulse stimulation (QPS) are known to induce synaptic plasticity in humans. There have been no head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy and variability between TBS and QPS. Objective To compare the efficacy and interindividual variability between the original TBS and QPS protocols. We hypothesized that QPS would be more effective and less variable than TBS. Methods Forty-six healthy subjects participated in this study. Thirty subjects participated in the main comparison experiment, and the other sixteen subjects participated in the experiment to obtain natural variation in motor-evoked potentials. The facilitatory effects were compared between intermittent TBS (iTBS) and QPS5, and the inhibitory effects were compared between continuous TBS (cTBS) and QPS50. The motor-evoked potential amplitudes elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex were measured before the intervention and every 5 min after the intervention for 1 h. To investigate the interindividual variability, the responder/nonresponder/opposite-responder rates were also analyzed. Results The facilitatory effects of QPS5 were greater than those of iTBS, and the inhibitory effects of QPS50 were much stronger than those of cTBS. The responder rate of QPS was significantly higher than that of TBS. QPS had a smaller number of opposite responders than TBS. Conclusion QPS is more effective and stable for synaptic plasticity induction than TBS.

Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans. Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject's age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be "safe" where they are applying stimulation beyond that examined in published studies that also investigated potential side effects. Brain stimulation devices marketed for consumer use are distinct from medical devices because they do not make medical claims and are therefore not necessarily subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices (i.e., by government agencies tasked with regulating medical devices). Manufacturers must follow ethical and best practices in marketing tES stimulators, including not misleading users by referencing effects from human trials using devices and protocols not similar to theirs. [Abstract copyright: © 2022 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.]