Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Frontal, Parietal, and Cerebellar Regions in Fasting Healthy Adults
by
Abdullah Almousa
1,†, 
Reema Alajaji
1,†,
Malak Alaboudi
1,
Fahad Al-sultan
1 and
Shahid Bashir
2,* 1
Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, P.O. 11445, Saudi Arabia
2
Neuroscience Center, King Fahad Specialist Hospital Dammam, Dammam, P.O. 15215, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Behav. Sci. 2018, 8(9), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8090081
Submission received: 13 August 2018
/
Revised: 2 September 2018
/
Accepted: 6 September 2018
/
Published: 10 September 2018
Abstract
:(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation modality that has been investigated in a large number of studies in terms of it is effects on brain function, safety of use, and future implications. The principal aim of this study was to investigate the safety of 1.5-mA tDCS of three brain areas, that is, frontal, partial, and cerebellar cortices, in fasting healthy individuals during the month of Ramadan. (2) Methods: In a single-blinded, sham-controlled study, we assessed the safety of a 20-min tDCS current (1.5 mA, 35 cm2) over the right frontal, parietal, and cerebellar cortex areas after 8 h of fasting in healthy right-handed adult subjects using a standard safety questionnaire. (3) Results: A total of 49 subjects completed the tDCS sessions and safety questionnaire. None of the sessions were stopped due to pain or discomfort during stimulation. Moreover, no subject experienced serious adverse events such as seizures or loss of consciousness. (4) Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the frequency or type of side effects between active and sham stimulation sessions. The tDCS protocol applied in this study was found to be safe in fasting healthy adults.
1. Introduction
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method that delivers a constant and direct low-amplitude electric current via electrodes placed on the scalp [1,2,3,4]. tDCS has been increasingly used in neuroscience research by a number of different investigations, either to locate specific tasks in specific brain regions [4,5,6,7,8,9], or to evaluate possible therapeutic effects in some neurological and psychiatric disorders [8,10,11,12,13]. tDCS typically employs electric currents with amplitudes ranging from 0 to 2 mA, as safety protocols generally restrict the maximum acceptable amplitude for use in human participants to 2 mA [2,3,4,11,14,15,16]. tDCS either enhances or depresses cell membrane excitability by using a positive or negative current from an anode or cathode, respectively [3,17]. Despite rapid advancements in diverse applications of tDCS in basic and clinical neuroscience in the last decade, there is an increasing need to evaluate its safety in local populations and provide feedback to regulate its use by practitioners, patients, and regulatory agencies [2,3,4,11,15,16,17,18].
A recent review on tDCS safety reported no evidence of serious adverse effects or irreversible injury produced by conventional tDCS protocols within a wide range of stimulation parameters from over 33,000 tDCS sessions and more than 1000 subjects receiving repeated sessions [18,19]. Few minor side effects are associated with tDCS, which include skin irritation, phosphenes at the start of stimulation, nausea, headaches, dizziness, and itching under the electrode. Additionally, experimental tDCS is not advised for use in individuals suffering from seizures or migraines [11,16,18]. Moreover, the safety of tDCS was proven in controlled human trials, and the mild skin erythema that occurs during the procedure is not inherently hazardous and resolves after the stimulation [19].
Three major areas of the brain (i.e., frontal, parietal, and cerebellar) have been commonly targeted for tDCS stimulation in the literature [2,4,6,19]. However, no study has examined the safety of tDCS in fasting individuals.
Owing to the extensive use of tDCS as a clinical treatment aid, it is imperative to investigate and publish additional reports on its safety and tolerability during fasting, which could aid in future studies and therapeutic uses conducted under this condition. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of anodal/sham tDCS in healthy adults fasting for 8 h or longer.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
We selected 49 participants (aged 18 to 60 years) via simple random sampling from the local community during the month of Ramadan. The minimum fasting time to participate in the experiment was 8 h. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity, and were naive to brain stimulation. Written informed consent was obtained from each subject before the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH). Only subjects with no history of neurological or psychological disorders, epilepsy or family history of epilepsy, metal instrument inserted in the head, migraine, stroke, or any previous head surgery were included. Participants were excluded if they presented with any skin disorder at or near stimulation locations (where electrodes are placed), such as eczema, rash, or other skin conditions.
2.2. Procedure
Before committing to the experiment, all participants were screened to ensure that they met all of the participation criteria. Each participant underwent three tDCS sessions separated by a 1-week washout interval. Each participant was randomly assigned to the placement of two electrodes on one of the three brain areas for anodal stimulation (i.e., right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), right posterior parietal cortex, and right cerebellum). For the right DLPFC, the anode was placed over scalp location F4 and the cathode over Fp1 [20]. For the right cerebellum, the overlying scalp area was localized using the international electroencephalographic 10–20 system. For cerebellar cortex stimulation, the anodal electrode was placed over the scalp area estimated to overlie the right cerebellar cortex (3 cm lateral to the inion), and the reference electrode was positioned on the skin area overlying the right buccinator muscle [21]. This method of localizing the right cerebellum has been found to be appropriate for tDCS of this area. In order to activate the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the anodal electrode was placed over P4 and the cathodal electrode was attached to the contralateral supraorbital area [22].
The current (1.5 mA) was administered for 20 min via two saline-soaked, 35-cm2 (Soterix Medical Inc. EasyPAD) sponge electrodes (current density of approximately 0.08 mA/cm2) and secured using Velcro straps, and stimulation was generated with a Soterix (Soterix Medical Inc., New York, NY, USA). A sham (control) group was also established for each stimulation area in which the electrodes were set up using either the right DLPFC, cerebellum, or PPC montage. For this group, the current was ramped up to 1.5 mA over 30 s and then ramped back down both at the beginning and end of the 20-min period.
After the 20-min session, the electrodes were removed and a physical assessment of the skin and scalp was conducted. A side effect questionnaire using a Likert scale (0–5) was administered before and after each session. Each participant was asked to respond to questions about any prevalent side effects and rate them based on severity (Tingling, Itching, Burning, Headache, Fatigue, Difficulty in concentration, Sudden mood change, Change in visual perception, Unpleasant sensation, Unpleasant sensation in vision, Nausea, Drowsiness , Feeling stimulation Right, Feeling stimulation left or burning under the electrodes). Each potential adverse event was rated from 1–5 (1 = very mild/5 = very severe) [23]. All the questions were translated into Arabic.
2.3. Data Analysis
The collected data were qualitative and the assumption of expected frequency being <20% was not violated for tingling, itching, burning, headache, or feeling the stimulation on the right side after taking off the electrodes. We used Pearson’s chi-square test for comparing the presence of these side effects before and after stimulation. As the expected frequency assumption was violated for fatigue, difficulty in concentration, acute mode change, change in visual perception, unpleasant sensation, unpleasant sensation in vision, nausea, drowsiness, and feeling the stimulation on the right side after taking off the electrodes, we used Fisher’s exact test for these side effects. Data were analyzed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
The current study enrolled a total of 49 participants (males: 32, 65.3%; females: 17, 34.7%); the mean age for males and females was 23.3 and 26.4 years, respectively.
No session was interrupted or stopped due to pain or discomfort during stimulation. No serious adverse events such as seizure or loss of consciousness were observed.
3.1. Cerebellum
The most commonly reported side effects in the active group were burning (p = 0.063), difficulty in concentration (p = 0.241), sudden mood change (p = 0.082), and unpleasant sensation in vision (p = 0.224) after anodal cerebellum stimulation. On the other hand, the following adverse effects were reported most frequently in the sham group: fatigue (p = 0.695), difficulty in concentration (p = 0.241), unpleasant sensation in vision (p = 0.224), and drowsiness (p = 1.00) (Table 1).
3.2. Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC)
The highest frequencies of side effects were reported in the active group but the difference with the sham group did not reach significance (headache p = 0.144, unpleasant sensation p = 0.271). However, less adverse effects were reported in the sham group (itching n = 2, p = 1.00; burning n = 2, p = 1.00; headache n = 2, p = 0.144; unpleasant sensation n = 2, p = 0.271; Table 3).
The severity of each adverse effect compared between the active and sham groups after the tDCS of the DLPC is shown in Table 4. The most commonly reported symptom in the active group was itching (mean = 1.13, p = 0.088), and change in visual perception in the sham group (mean = 1.60, p = 0.094; Table 4).
3.3. Posterior Parietal Cortex (PPC)
Table 5 shows that the most frequent side effects were reported in the active group but the difference with the sham group did not reach significance (tingling n = 3, p = 0.072; sudden mood change n = 5 , p = 0.092), and the participants in the sham group reported more side effects compared to the active group (tingling n = 4, p = 0.072; headache n = 4, p = 0.144). Table 6 shows the severity of each side effect compared between active and sham group after the tDCS session of the PPC. We found that itching was the most severe symptom in the active group (mean = 1.6, p = 0.77), and difficulty in concentration was the most severe in the sham group (mean = 1.7, p = 0.426).
4. Discussion
The current study was conducted to evaluate the safety of a tDCS protocol on the frontal, parietal, and cerebral regions in fasting healthy adults.
The adverse effects most commonly reported are mild headache, tingling, itching, burning sensation, and skin redness under the area of electrodes [2,3,11,12,19,24]. Our results confirm these findings; however, we also found a low frequency of these adverse effects. In our study, we did not find a significant difference in the amount of side effects reported between the active and sham stimulation groups for any of the interventions.
Our study showed that non-invasive brain stimulation with tDCS using a constant current of 1.5 mA applied over the right DLPFC, PPC, and cerebellum was not associated with safety issues after stimulation. This is in agreement with previous work [1,2,3,5,7,10,11,12,13,16]. In addition, there were no serious adverse effects such as seizures or serious headaches during or after the stimulation. None of the subjects requested to interrupt the stimulation or needed any medical intervention during or after the end of stimulation.
The safety of the application of tDCS in humans has been addressed and tested in multiple studies [1,2,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,16,24] using different safety parameters such as use of water-soaked sponge electrodes, size of electrodes, and intensity and duration of stimulation. These studies concluded that the application a direct current (DC) over the scalp does not induce negative effects.
This study demonstrated that the tDCS protocol was safe to apply in fasting healthy adults. Other studies that investigated the safety of tDCS have also demonstrated its safety in healthy adults [12,25]. The latest review of evidence on the safety of tDCS has shown no reports of serious injuries or adverse effect in humans [19]. Moreover, tDCS appears to be safe to use in healthy adults and children, obese adults, stroke patients, and individuals with mood disorders [19].
Our study confirms that tDCS is safe and can be used in fasting healthy adults as well. The common adverse effects were mild skin irritation and redness [26]. Adverse events such as tingling, itching, and burning sensation on the stimulation site occurred in the sham group at a lesser rate. This could be due to the ten seconds stimulation (ramp-up) time in the sham group. Fatigue was also reported during these sessions, which could be due to the prolonged duration of the stimulation and is thus not a direct effect of the electric stimulation.
The current study has limited generalizability due to the relatively small sample size, which may be inadequate to detect the statistical significance of some effects. Further studies with a larger sample size including other comorbities are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of tDCS of the frontal, parietal, and cerebellar regions of the brain. Since Ramadan fasting involves total abstinence from not only food but also fluids, the serum osmolarity and intracellular water content, and eventually the quantitative values of brain structures may have been altered. However, in the current study, we did not examine the effect of dehydration using a direct measure of body water content such as serum osmolality.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, tDCS was found to be safe for use in fasting healthy adults on the frontal, parietal, and cerebellar regions of the brain. No significant difference was found in the frequency of side effects between the active and sham stimulation sessions for any of the interventions.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.A., R.A. and S.B.; Methodology, A.A., R.A., M.A., F.A.-s.; Formal Analysis, A.A., R.A., S.B.; Investigation, A.A., R.A., M.A., F.A.-s., S.B.; Data Curation, A.A., R.A., M.A., F.A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, A.A., R.A., M.A., F.A.-s., S.B.; Writing—Review & Editing, A.A., R.A., M.A., F.A.-s., S.B.; Supervision, S.B.
Funding
The authors wish to extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University for funding this work through the Undergraduate Students’ Research Support Program.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the volunteers who participated in the study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- To, W.T.; De Ridder, D.; Hart, J., Jr.; Vanneste, S. Changing Brain Networks Through Non-invasive Neuromodulation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thair, H.; Holloway, A.L.; Newport, R.; Smith, A.D. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): A beginner’s guide for design and implementation. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arul-Anandam, A.P.; Loo, C.; Sachdev, P. Transcranial direct current stimulation–What is the evidence for its efficacy and safety? F1000 Med. Rep. 2009, 1, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Axelrod, V.; Rees, G.; Lavidor, M.; Bar, M. Increasing propensity to mind-wander with transcranial direct current stimulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 3314–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Berryhill, M.E.; Peterson, D.J.; Jones, K.T.; Stephens, J.A. Hits and misses: Leveraging tDCS to advance cognitive research. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bikson, M.; Datta, A.; Elwassif, M. Establishing safety limits for transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2009, 120, 1033–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bikson, M.; Datta, A.; Rahman, A.; Scaturro, J. Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: Role of “return” electrode’s position and size. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2010, 121, 1976–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Boggio, P.S.; Nunes, A.; Rigonatti, S.P.; Nitsche, M.A.; Pascual-Leone, A.; Fregni, F. Repeated sessions of noninvasive brain DC stimulation is associated with motor function improvement in stroke patients. Res. Neurol. Neurosci. 2007, 25, 123–129. [Google Scholar]
- Boggio, P.S.; Rigonatti, S.P.; Ribeiro, R.B.; Myczkowski, M.L.; Nitsche, M.A.; Pascual-Leone, A.; Fregni, F. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial on the efficacy of cortical direct current stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008, 11, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brunoni, A.R.; Amadera, J.; Berbel, B.; Volz, M.S.; Rizzerio, B.G.; Fregni, F. A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011, 14, 1133–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brunoni, A.R.; Nitsche, M.A.; Bolognini, N.; Bikson, M.; Wagner, T.; Merabet, L.; Edwards, D.J.; Valero-Cabre, A.; Rotenberg, A.; Pascual-Leone, A.; et al. Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and future directions. Brain Stimul. 2012, 5, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brunoni, A.; Vanderhasselt, M. Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Cognit. 2014, 86, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chaieb, L.; Antal, A.; Paulus, W. Gender-specific modulation of short-term neuroplasticity in the visual cortex induced by transcranial direct current stimulation. Vis. Neurosci. 2008, 25, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chhatbar, P.Y.; Chen, R.; Deardorff, R.; Dellenbach, B.; Kautz, S.A.; George, M.S.; Feng, W. Safety and tolerability of transcranial direct current stimulation to stroke patients e A phase I current escalation study. Brain Stimul. 2017, 10, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coffman, B.A.; Clark, V.P.; Parasuraman, R. Battery powered thought: Enhancement of attention, learning, and memory in healthy adults using transcranial direct current stimulation. NeuroImage 2014, 85, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fertonani, A.; Ferrari, C.; Miniussi, C. What do you feel if I apply transcranial electric stimulation? Safety, sensations and secondary induced effects. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015, 126, 2181–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Filmer, H.L.; Dux, P.E.; Mattingley, J.B. Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function. Trends Neurosci. 2014, 37, 742–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Iyer, M.B.; Mattu, U.; Grafman, J.; Lomarev, M.; Sato, S.; Wassermann, E.M. Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals. Neurology 2005, 64, 872–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacobson, L.; Koslowsky, M.; Lavidor, M. tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: A meta-analytical review. Exp. Brain Res. 2012, 216, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seidler, R.; Gluskin, B.; Greeley, B. Right prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation enhances multi-day savings in sensorimotor adaptation. J. Neurophysiol. 2016, 117, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Galea, J.M.; Jayaram, G.; Ajagbe, L.; Celnik, P. Modulation of Cerebellar Excitability by Polarity-Specific Noninvasive Direct Current Stimulation. J. Neurosci. 2009, 29, 9115–9122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bardi, L.; Kanai, R.; Mapelli, D.; Walsh, V. Direct current stimulation (tDCS) reveals parietal asymmetry in local/global and salience-based selection. Cortex 2013, 49, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poreisz, C.; Boros, K.; Antal, A.; Paulus, W. Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients. Brain Res. Bull. 2007, 72, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loo, C.K.; Martin, D.M.; Alonzo, A.; Gandevia, S.; Mitchell, P.B.; Sachdev, P. Avoiding skin burns with transcranial direct current stimulation: Preliminary considerations. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011, 14, 425–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turski, C.A.; Kessler-Jones, A.; Chow, C.; Hermann, B.; Hsu, D.; Jones, J.; Seeger, S.K.; Chappell, R.; Boly, M.; Ikonomidou, C. Extended Multiple-Field High-Definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) is well tolerated and safe in healthy adults. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2017, 35, 631–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Woods, A.J.; Antal, A.; Bikson, M.; Boggio, P.S.; Brunoni, A.R.; Celnik, P.; Cohen, L.G.; Fregni, F.; Herrmann, C.S.; Kappenman, E.S.; et al. A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2016, 127, 1031–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1.
Number of occurrences of side effects between active and sham groups for the cerebellum.
| Total (n = 17) | Condition | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active (n = 8) | Sham (n = 9) | |||
| Tingling * | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0.077 |
| Itching * | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0.312 |
| Burning * | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0.063 |
| Headache * | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.224 |
| Fatigue ** | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0.695 |
| Difficulty in concentration ** | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0.241 |
| Sudden mood change ** | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0.082 |
| Change in visual perception ** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
| Unpleasant sensation ** | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0.372 |
| Unpleasant sensation in vision ** | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0.224 |
| Nausea ** | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Drowsiness ** | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1.000 |
| Feeling stimulation R ** | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Feeling stimulation L * | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.164 |
* Pearson Chi-Square Test; ** Fisher’s Exact Test; R: Right; L: Left.
Table 2.
Comparing the severity (out of 5) of side effects between active and sham groups for the cerebellum.
Table 2.
Comparing the severity (out of 5) of side effects between active and sham groups for the cerebellum.
| Total Mean | Condition | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active (Mean) | Sham (Mean) | |||
| Tingling | 0.54 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 0.023 * |
| Itching | 0.72 | 1.12 | 0.33 | 0.049 * |
| Burning | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 0.125 |
| Headache | 0.83 | 1.00 | 0.66 | 0.312 |
| Fatigue | 1.21 | 1.65 | 0.77 | 0.121 |
| Difficulty in concentration | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.33 | 0.439 |
| Sudden mood change | 1.16 | 1.12 | 1.11 | 0.854 |
| Change in visual perception | 1.13 | 1.5 | 0.77 | 0.221 |
| Unpleasant sensation | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.11 | 0.082 |
| Unpleasant sensation in vision | 0.72 | 1.12 | 0.33 | 0.324 |
| Nausea | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.114 |
| Drowsiness | 0.36 | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.087 |
Values are out of a total of 5; * p-value < 0.05.
Table 3.
Number of occurrences of side effects between active and sham groups for the DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).
Table 3.
Number of occurrences of side effects between active and sham groups for the DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).
| Total (n = 18) | Condition | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active (n = 8) | Sham (n = 10) | |||
| Tingling * | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.742 |
| Itching * | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Burning * | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Headache * | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0.144 |
| Fatigue ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Difficulty in concentration ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Sudden mood change ** | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.092 |
| Change in visual perception ** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
| Unpleasant sensation ** | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0.271 |
| Unpleasant sensation in vision ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.824 |
| Nausea ** | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Drowsiness ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Feeling stimulation R ** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 |
| Feeling stimulation L * | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0.211 |
* Pearson Chi-Square Test; ** Fisher’s Exact Test; R: Right; L: Left.
Table 4.
Comparing the severity (out of 5) of side effects between active and sham groups for the DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).
Table 4.
Comparing the severity (out of 5) of side effects between active and sham groups for the DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).
| Total Mean | Condition | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active (Mean) | Sham (Mean) | |||
| Tingling | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.10 | 0.623 |
| Itching | 0.94 | 1.13 | 0.75 | 0.088 |
| Burning | 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.142 |
| Headache | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.2 | 0.238 |
| Fatigue | 1.00 | 1 | 1 | 0.121 |
| Difficulty in concentration | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.60 | 0.122 |
| Sudden mood change | 0.57 | 0.75 | 0.40 | 0.142 |
| Change in visual perception | 1.40 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 0.094 |
| Unpleasant sensation | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.216 |
| Unpleasant sensation in vision | 0.67 | 1.12 | 0.33 | 0.228 |
| Nausea | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.30 | 0.414 |
| Drowsiness | 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 0.156 |
Values are out of a total of 5.
Table 5.
Number of occurrences of side effects between active and sham groups for the PPC (posterior parietal cortex).
Table 5.
Number of occurrences of side effects between active and sham groups for the PPC (posterior parietal cortex).
| Total (n = 14) | Condition | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active (n = 5) | Sham (n = 9) | |||
| Tingling * | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0.072 |
| Itching * | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Burning * | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Headache * | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0.144 |
| Fatigue ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Difficulty in concentration ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Sudden mood change ** | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0.092 |
| Change in visual perception ** | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Unpleasant sensation ** | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0.271 |
| Unpleasant sensation in vision ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Nausea ** | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Drowsiness ** | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.842 |
| Feeling stimulation R ** | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0.842 |
| Feeling stimulation L * | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
* Pearson Chi-Square Test; ** Fisher’s Exact Test.
Table 6.
Comparing the severity (out of 5) of side effects between active and sham groups for the PPC (posterior parietal cortex).
Table 6.
Comparing the severity (out of 5) of side effects between active and sham groups for the PPC (posterior parietal cortex).
| Total Mean | Condition | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active (Mean) | Sham (Mean) | |||
| Tingling | 0.60 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.062 |
| Itching | 1.18 | 1.6 | 0.77 | 0.076 |
| Burning | 0.30 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.162 |
| Headache | 0.72 | 1.00 | 0.44 | 0.122 |
| Fatigue | 0.66 | 0.88 | 0.44 | 0.106 |
| Difficulty in concentration | 1.55 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 0.426 |
| Sudden mood change | 1.14 | 1.4 | 0.88 | 0.0822 |
| Change in visual perception | 0.41 | 0.60 | 0.222 | 0.144 |
| Unpleasant sensation | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.622 |
| Unpleasant sensation in vision | 1.33 | 1.33 | 1.33 | 1.000 |
| Nausea | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.40 | 0.226 |
| Drowsiness | 1.15 | 1.2 | 1.11 | 0.622 |
Values are out of a total of 5.
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Almousa, A.; Alajaji, R.; Alaboudi, M.; Al-sultan, F.; Bashir, S. Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Frontal, Parietal, and Cerebellar Regions in Fasting Healthy Adults. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8090081
AMA Style
Almousa A, Alajaji R, Alaboudi M, Al-sultan F, Bashir S. Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Frontal, Parietal, and Cerebellar Regions in Fasting Healthy Adults. Behavioral Sciences. 2018; 8(9):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8090081
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlmousa, Abdullah, Reema Alajaji, Malak Alaboudi, Fahad Al-sultan, and Shahid Bashir. 2018. "Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Frontal, Parietal, and Cerebellar Regions in Fasting Healthy Adults" Behavioral Sciences 8, no. 9: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8090081
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
