↓ Skip to main content

Notes on Human Trials of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation between 1960 and 1998

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Notes on Human Trials of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation between 1960 and 1998
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zeinab Esmaeilpour, Pedro Schestatsky, Marom Bikson, André R. Brunoni, Ada Pellegrinelli, Fernanda X. Piovesan, Mariana M. S. A. Santos, Renata B. Menezes, Felipe Fregni

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is investigated to modulate neuronal function including cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychiatric therapies. While cases of human stimulation with rudimentary batteries date back more than 200 years, clinical trials with current controlled stimulation were published intermittently since the 1960s. The modern era of tDCS only started after 1998. Objectives: To review methods and outcomes of tDCS studies from old literature (between 1960 and 1998) with intention of providing new insight for ongoing tDCS trials and development of tDCS protocols especially for the purpose of treatment. Methods: Articles were identified through a search in PubMed and through the reference list from its selected articles. We included only non-invasive human studies that provided controlled direct current and were written in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese before the year of 1998, the date in which modern stimulation paradigms were implemented. Results: Fifteen articles met our criteria. The majority were small-randomized controlled clinical trials that enrolled a mean of approximately 26 subjects (Phase II studies). Most of the studies (around 83%) assessed the role of tDCS in the treatment of psychiatric conditions, in which the main outcomes were measured by means of behavioral scales and clinical observation, but the diagnostic precision and the quality of outcome monitoring, including adverse events, were deficient by modern standards. Compared to modern tDCS dose, the stimulation intensities used (0.1-1 mA) were lower, however as the electrodes were typically smaller (e.g., 1.26 cm(2)), the average electrode current density (0.2 mA/cm(2)) was approximately 4× higher. The number of sessions ranged from one to 120 (median 14). Notably, the stimulation session durations of several minutes to 11 h (median 4.5 h) could markedly exceed modern tDCS protocols. Twelve studies out of 15 showed positive results. Only mild side effects were reported, with headache and skin alterations the most common. Conclusion: Most of the studies identified were for psychiatric indications, especially in patients with depression and/or schizophrenia and majority indicated some positive results. Variability in outcome is noted across trials and within trials across subjects, but overall results were reported as encouraging, and consistent with modern efforts, given some responders and mild side effects. The significant difference with modern dose, low current with smaller electrode size and interestingly much longer stimulation duration may worth considering.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 18%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Other 6 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 28%
Psychology 20 16%
Neuroscience 14 11%
Engineering 5 4%
Materials Science 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,834,230
of 24,969,131 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#860
of 7,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,081
of 316,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#25
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,969,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.