Aurore Thibaut
Ross Zafonte3,4,5
Leslie R. Morse
Felipe Fregni- 1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neuromodulation Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
- 2Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, University Hospital of Liege, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
- 3Spaulding-Harvard SCI Model System Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
- 4Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
- 5Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
- 6Rocky Mountain Regional Spinal Injury System, Craig Rehabilitation Hospital, Englewood, CO, United States
- 7Department of PMR, University of Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
In a recent clinical trial we demonstrated the analgesic effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI); however, the positive impact of tDCS on pain was not paralleled by an improvement in quality of life or other related clinical scales. Here we discuss the reasons of such negative results and present hypotheses that could explain why tDCS had no impact on patients' quality of life, while their average level of pain decreased. We will also discuss how these negative findings can help to design future clinical trial using tDCS to treat individuals with chronic pain.
tDCS is an alternative but relevant therapeutic option to manage pain and stimulate motor recovery in patients with SCI. This non-invasive neuromodulation technique has been shown to significantly and sustainably reduce pain if applied repeatedly in various pain syndromes (Fregni et al., 2006a,b; Valle et al., 2009; Sakrajai et al., 2014; Castillo-Saavedra et al., 2016). In our previous study we assessed the effects of motor (M1) anodal tDCS on pain relief, as well as satisfaction with life as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985; Dijkers, 1999), quality of life through mental state (Kroenke et al., 2001) with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and symptoms of depression with the Beck Depression Inventory. The study comprised two phases; the first one consisted of five tDCS sessions with behavioral assessments completed at baseline, at the end of the five stimulation sessions, at 1-week and 3-month follow-up. The second phase started after the end of the 3-month follow-up period of the Phase I. During this second phase, patients who agreed to continue received 10 sessions of tDCS (applied once daily for 2 weeks) in order to evaluate the effects of adding a second phase of treatment. Assessments were performed after 5 and 10 stimulation sessions and at 2, 4, and 8-week follow-up. While pain was found to be reduced in the active treatment group, and this effect was maintained up to 4 weeks after the last tDCS session, quality of life and mood remained unchanged throughout the entire duration of the protocol for both active and sham groups.
Several hypotheses could explain why anodal M1 tDCS had no influence on mood or satisfaction with life: (1) M1 may not be an appropriate target to modulate mood or satisfaction with life; (2) the primary outcome was pain and therefore this study was not designed to specifically detect change in such scales; (3) the SWLS and PHQ-9 may not be accurate or sensitive enough to detect changes due to tDCS treatment.
Based on the current tDCS literature and the present understanding of pain sensitization mechanisms, the sensorimotor cortex is the most relevant area to target when aiming at treating pain (Castillo Saavedra et al., 2014). By stimulating this specific brain region, anodal tDCS can reduce or reverse the detrimental reorganization of the neural pain network occurring as a consequence of chronic pain mechanisms (Seifert and Maihöfner, 2009; Henderson et al., 2011; Gustin et al., 2012). Several studies have shown that M1 stimulation, using either tDCS or other non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), leads to local and distant neural effects that result in pain reduction (Lefaucheur, 2016). For instance, stimulating M1 may counteract the lack of inhibition from M1, that could also be associated with pain reduction (Botelho et al., 2016; Caumo et al., 2016). In addition, neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that tDCS could also induce changes in thalamic, insula and cingulate activity (Yoon et al., 2014; Simis et al., 2015), known to be related to pain processing (Treede et al., 1999). Regarding quality of life and life satisfaction, significant improvements have been observed when tDCS was applied over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), rather than M1 stimulation, in various conditions (Fregni et al., 2006b; Mori et al., 2011; Viana et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2016). Indeed, the prefrontal region has been shown to be a better modulator for mood, and quality of life (Schaffer et al., 1983; Drevets, 1998). The region of interest, and subsequently the network to target, is one of the most important parameters when designing a clinical trial, based on the symptoms or behaviors to improve. In this context it is essential to evaluate the brain behavior relationship with the appropriate tools when designing a clinical trial. This can be seen as a decisional pyramid between: symptom(s)—network to target—behavioral correlates. In this context it is critical to have a clear a priori hypothesis and to select the appropriate clinical scale(s) accordingly. A recent framework developed by researchers from National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), called the research domain criteria (RDoC) is useful for such analysis.
Sankarasubramanian et al. (2017) assessed the effects of anodal tDCS applied on two distinct sites on functional connectivity. They found site-specific effects of M1 tDCS vs. tDCS applied over the DLPFC on functional connectivity between the thalamus and the cortex. Both M1 and DLPFC tDCS increased functional connectivity between the ventroposterolateral nucleus of the thalamus and the sensorimotor cortices; however, the connectivity was greater with M1 tDCS. On the other hand, both M1 and DLPFC tDCS increased functional connectivity between the medial dorsal nucleus of the thalamus and the motor cortex, but only DLPFC tDCS modulated functional connectivity between this nucleus and affective cortices (Sankarasubramanian et al., 2017); highlighting the network-specific effect of site-specific tDCS. From a clinical perspective, similar observations have been made. Roizenblatt et al. (2007) compared the effects of anodal tDCS applied over the left DLPFC with M1 tDCS on pain level and sleep in patients with fibromyalgia (Roizenblatt et al., 2007). M1 stimulation was the only condition associated with reduced pain, and it improved sleep quality as well. On the other hand, DLPFC tDCS did not modulate pain level and it worsened sleep efficiency, stressing the site-specificity of tDCS clinical effects. In addition Boggio et al. (2008) showed that in healthy subjects only M1 stimulation leads to a change of somatosensory perception (Boggio et al., 2008). Indeed, it appears than stimulating M1 mainly influences lateral thalamic projections that process sensory-discriminative information and are paralleled with significant clinical improvement (Antal et al., 2010; Mori et al., 2010), while the stimulation of other sensorimotor structures, such as the somatosensory cortex or the premotor, and supplementary motor areas, have failed to induce similar analgesic effects (Koyama et al., 1993; Hirayama et al., 2006).
Recently, the authors of a randomized controlled trial, notably arguing that they had performed the first and only sufficiently powered trial testing the analgesic effects of tDCS in participants with SCI, concluded that anodal M1 tDCS was ineffective to alleviate or reduce pain in this specific condition when applied for 5 days (Luedtke et al., 2015). In this trial, they compared a group of patients receiving active tDCS for 5 days followed by cognitive training for 4 weeks, to a group of patients who received sham tDCS for 5 days followed by the same cognitive training for 4 weeks. However, such results need to be assessed with caution given that the main area of stimulation (i.e., M1) and the behavioral training that was performed following tDCS (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy) targeted two different networks. The authors found a significant decrease in pain scores in both groups (sham and active M1 tDCS) after cognitive behavioral therapy, but there were no differences between active and sham tDCS. This result is not surprising since the cognitive behavioral therapy activates mainly prefrontal neural circuits, while M1 tDCS stimulates the sensori-motor network. In this case, an important concept needs to be considered when designing a protocol; it is not only the anatomical region of stimulation that needs to be determined but the anatomical region plus the cortical engagement. For instance, if M1 is targeted with tDCS but a behavioral stimulation activates prefrontal circuits, it is expected that M1 tDCS would have minor, or no effects at all, on enhancing the effects of behavioral stimulation since they target two different circuits. It is suggested that combined therapies should target the same circuit to be additive. Indeed, tDCS could prime the brain targeted circuit before a therapy as it has been shown with combined tDCS and robotic upper limb therapy in cerebral palsy (Friel et al., 2017).
As noted above, it is essential to understand the mechanisms and networks involved in a specific pathology in order to appropriately treat it. It is now well-acknowledged that tDCS modulates not only the area stimulated but also the entire neural network. For instance, by means of neuroimaging studies (fMRI and Positron Emission Tomography—PET-scan), anodal M1 tDCS has been shown to activate ipsilateral motor areas (e.g., primary, supplementary, or premotor cortices) as well as contralateral or long-distance areas (e.g., frontal cortex, somatosensory regions, posterior parietal cortex) and subcortical areas (anterior cingulate cortex) in healthy controls (Lang et al., 2005; Kwon et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2012). These areas are altered in chronic pain syndromes (Baliki et al., 2011). Yoon et al. (2014) used PET-scan to assess brain metabolism after M1 tDCS in participants with chronic pain. They reported that tDCS induces increased metabolism in the medulla and decreased metabolism in the left DLPFC (Yoon et al., 2014). These various neuroimaging studies demonstrate the effect of M1 tDCS on cortical and sub-cortical pain-related network activity. New multichannel-tDCS devices may be even more effective given that they could target and stimulate different areas involved in the same neural network. Preliminary mechanistic studies have shown the superiority of such approaches as compared to conventional dual tDCS (Fischer et al., 2017). Indeed, it has been demonstrated that, as compared to conventional M1 tDCS montage, a single session of novel eight-electrode montage targeting M1 and its associated network induced more than twice as much increase in M1 excitability, measured by resting state fMRI (Fischer et al., 2017). This result shows the possible superiority of such novel network-based multi-channel tDCS approaches; however, behavioral effects still need to be demonstrated.
When discussing multi-channel tDCS protocols, it is essential to stress the importance of the polarity and electrode montage, together with the optimal current intensity. For instance, in an experiment aiming at studying the effect of increasing current intensities on cortical excitability, Batsikadze et al. (2013), showed that, while cathodale tDCS applied at 1 mA reduced cortical excitability, increasing the intensity to 2 mA induced opposite effects (i.e., enhancement of cortical excitability). These results suggest that increasing the intensity of stimulation does not necessarily strengthen the effects but, on the contrary, can result in a shift of the direction of expected cortical changes. To help clinicians and researchers to test and validate optimal electrodes montage and current parameters before running an experiment, computer-based model of the electrical field should be explored, such as demonstrated recently in several studies (Kessler et al., 2013; Gillick et al., 2014; Galletta et al., 2015).
Regarding the selection of the main outcome measure(s), especially when it concerns clinical scales, it is of an upmost importance to choose a sensitive tool that accurately evaluates the symptoms being treated and/or the mechanisms of the therapy. In our case, the mental states evaluated by the selected scales (i.e., QoL and SWLS) are unrelated to modulation of the motor cortex excitability. The expected improvements would have been related to the indirect effects of pain relief on patients' quality of life and satisfaction. Despite the fact that many studies have demonstrated a correlation between pain levels and quality of life (Wahl et al., 2009; Scholich et al., 2012; Wranker et al., 2014), it cannot be assumed that a novel treatment for pain will also effectively treat associated secondary manifestations. This brings us to another factor critical to be considered when analyzing the results of a trial. The fact that no improvements were noticed on secondary outcomes does not conclusively demonstrate that the intervention is ineffective for such symptoms. Indeed, a trial is designed based on the primary outcome measure. The protocol design, sample size calculation, follow-up measures, or the chronology of the tests are all factors that are elaborated based on the research question and the main goal of a study. For instance, it is possible that our study was not sufficiently powered to detect changes in QoL or life satisfaction. Other scales, such as the SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Survey, assessing mental state based on patients' report; McHorney et al., 1993) may have been more sensitive to detect changes since they may be more impacted by pain. Similarly, the effects we found in pain scores in our trial may not have been strong enough to modify other related outcomes. In addition, to observe improvement on mental states, especially in individuals with chronic pain, a greater and more prolonged effect on pain may be required, and therefore, more tDCS sessions may be needed to induce significant quality of life enhancements. It is also important to objectively analyze the (negative) results and explain such findings, while avoiding over-concluding if the pre-specified hypothesis is not met. To conclude, we here aimed to emphasize the importance of network selection when designing a clinical trial on tDCS effects. This requires a good understanding of the mechanisms underlying the symptoms to treat and the neural adaptation occurring in the related condition. For chronic pain, evidence suggests that pain is associated with the phenomenon of central sensitization involving a large neural network that includes limbic structures, such as the anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus and amygdala, and thalamic nuclei, as well as the sensorimotor area (Treede et al., 1999; Phillips and Clauw, 2011; Bourke et al., 2015). In addition, enhanced activity in pain-related brain structures have been reported, including the motor cortex (Fregni et al., 2006a). By targeting an area that is linked to pain circuitry, we expected to observe significant effects of tDCS on pain level as measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) and we confirm our hypothesis. Similar symptoms-network-outcome pyramidal approach needs to be applied when designing a clinical trial on neuromodulation. Moreover, behavioral intervention(s) targeting the same cortical network should be tested in addition to tDCS in order to prime its effects.
Author Contributions
AT and FF: wrote the manuscript. RZ and LM: significantly reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
This project was supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant numbers 90DP0035 and H133N110010).
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Antal, A., Terney, D., Kühnl, S., and Paulus, W. (2010). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex ameliorates chronic pain and reduces short intracortical inhibition. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 39, 890–903. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.09.023
Baliki, M. N., Schnitzer, T. J., Bauer, W. R., and Apkarian, A. V. (2011). Brain morphological signatures for chronic pain. PLoS ONE 6:e26010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026010
Batsikadze, G., Moliadze, V., Paulus, W., Kuo, M.-F., and Nitsche, M. A. (2013). Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J. Physiol. 591, 1987–2000. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.249730
Boggio, P. S., Zaghi, S., Lopes, M., and Fregni, F. (2008). Modulatory effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on perception and pain thresholds in healthy volunteers. Eur. J. Neurol. 15, 1124–1130. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02270.x
Botelho, L. M., Morales-Quezada, L., Rozisky, J. R., Brietzke, A. P., Torres, I. L. S., Deitos, A., et al. (2016). A framework for understanding the relationship between descending pain modulation, motor corticospinal, and neuroplasticity regulation systems in chronic myofascial pain. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10:308. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00308
Bourke, J. H., Langford, R. M., and White, P. D. (2015). The common link between functional somatic syndromes may be central sensitisation. J. Psychosom. Res. 78, 228–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.01.003
Castillo-Saavedra, L., Gebodh, N., Bikson, M., Diaz-Cruz, C., Brandao, R., Coutinho, L., et al. (2016). Clinically effective treatment of fibromyalgia pain with high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation: phase II open-label dose optimization. J. Pain 17, 14–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.09.009
Castillo Saavedra, L., Mendonca, M., and Fregni, F. (2014). Role of the primary motor cortex in the maintenance and treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Med. Hypotheses 83, 332–336. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2014.06.007
Caumo, W., Deitos, A., Carvalho, S., Leite, J., Carvalho, F., Dussán-Sarria, J. A., et al. (2016). Motor cortex excitability and BDNF levels in chronic musculoskeletal pain according to structural pathology. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10:357. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00357
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, J., and Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49, 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Dijkers, M. P. (1999). Correlates of life satisfaction among persons with spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 80, 867–876. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90076-X
Drevets, W. C. (1998). Functional neuroimaging studies of depression: the anatomy of melancholia. Annu. Rev. Med. 49, 341–361. doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.49.1.341
Fischer, D. B., Fried, P. J., Ruffini, G., Ripolles, O., Salvador, R., Banus, J., et al. (2017). Multifocal tDCS targeting the resting state motor network increases cortical excitability beyond traditional tDCS targeting unilateral motor cortex. Neuroimage 157, 34–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.060
Fregni, F., Boggio, P. S., Lima, M. C., Ferreira, M. J., Wagner, T., Rigonatti, S. P., et al. (2006a). A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain 122, 197–209. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.023
Fregni, F., Gimenes, R., Valle, A. C., Ferreira, M. J. L., Rocha, R. R., Natalle, L., et al. (2006b). A randomized, sham-controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 54, 3988–3998. doi: 10.1002/art.22195
Friel, K. M., Lee, P., Soles, L. V., Smorenburg, A. R. P., Kuo, H. C., Gupta, D. I., et al. (2017). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robotic upper limb therapy improves upper limb function in an adult with cerebral palsy. Neurorehabilitation 41, 41–50. doi: 10.3233/NRE-171455
Galletta, E. E., Cancelli, A., Cottone, C., Simonelli, I., Tecchio, F., Bikson, M., et al. (2015). Use of computational modeling to inform tDCS electrode montages for the promotion of language recovery in post-stroke aphasia. Brain Stimul. 8, 1108–1115. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2015.06.018
Gillick, B. T., Kirton, A., Carmel, J. B., Minhas, P., and Bikson, M. (2014). Pediatric stroke and transcranial direct current stimulation: methods for rational individualized dose optimization. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:739. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00739
Gustin, S. M., Peck, C. C., Cheney, L. B., Macey, P. M., Murray, G. M., and Henderson, L. A. (2012). Pain and plasticity: Is chronic pain always associated with somatosensory cortex activity and reorganization? J. Neurosci. 32, 14874–14884. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1733-12.2012
Henderson, L. A., Gustin, S. M., Macey, P. M., Wrigley, P. J., and Siddall, P. J. (2011). Functional reorganization of the brain in humans following spinal cord injury: evidence for underlying changes in cortical anatomy. J. Neurosci. 31, 2630–2637. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2717-10.2011
Hirayama, A., Saitoh, Y., Kishima, H., Shimokawa, T., Oshino, S., Hirata, M., et al. (2006). Reduction of intractable deafferentation pain by navigation-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex. Pain 122, 22–27. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.12.001
Kessler, S. K., Minhas, P., Woods, A. J., Rosen, A., Gorman, C., and Bikson, M. (2013). Dosage considerations for transcranial direct current stimulation in children: a computational modeling study. PLoS ONE 8:e76112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076112
Kim, C. R., Kim, D.-Y., Kim, L. S., Chun, M. H., Kim, S. J., and Park, C. H. (2012). Modulation of cortical activity after anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the lower limb motor cortex: a functional MRI study. Brain Stimul. 5, 462–467. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2011.08.002
Koyama, S., Katayama, Y., Maejima, S., Hirayama, T., Fujii, M., and Tsubokawa, T. (1993). Thalamic neuronal hyperactivity following transection of the spinothalamic tract in the cat: involvement of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor. Brain Res. 612, 345–350. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(93)91684-K
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., and Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 16, 606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
Kwon, Y. H., Ko, M.-H., Ahn, S. H., Kim, Y.-H., Song, J. C., Lee, C.-H., et al. (2008). Primary motor cortex activation by transcranial direct current stimulation in the human brain. Neurosci. Lett. 435, 56–59. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.02.012
Lang, N., Siebner, H. R., Ward, N. S., Lee, L., Nitsche, M. A., Paulus, W., et al. (2005). How does transcranial DC stimulation of the primary motor cortex alter regional neuronal activity in the human brain? Eur. J. Neurosci. 22, 495–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04233.x
Lefaucheur, J. (2016). Cortical neurostimulation for neuropathic pain: state of the art and perspectives. Pain 157(Suppl. 1), S81–S89. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000401
Liu, A., Bryant, A., Jefferson, A., Friedman, D., Minhas, P., Barnard, S., et al. (2016). Exploring the efficacy of a 5-day course of transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) on depression and memory function in patients with well-controlled temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 55, 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.10.032
Luedtke, K., Rushton, A., Wright, C., Jürgens, T., Polzer, A., Mueller, G., et al. (2015). Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation preceding cognitive behavioural management for chronic low back pain: sham controlled double blinded randomised controlled trial. BMJ 350:h1640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1640
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., and Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med. Care 31, 247–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006
Mori, F., Codecà, C., Kusayanagi, H., Monteleone, F., Buttari, F., Fiore, S., et al. (2010). Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on chronic neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis. J. Pain 11, 436–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.08.011
Mori, F., Ljoka, C., Magni, E., Codecà, C., Kusayanagi, H., Monteleone, F., et al. (2011). Transcranial magnetic stimulation primes the effects of exercise therapy in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. 258, 1281–1287. doi: 10.1007/s00415-011-5924-1
Phillips, K., and Clauw, D. J. (2011). Central pain mechanisms in chronic pain states–maybe it is all in their head. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 25, 141–154. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2011.02.005
Roizenblatt, S., Fregni, F., Gimenez, R., Wetzel, T., Rigonatti, S. P., Tufik, S., et al. (2007). Site-specific effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on sleep and pain in fibromyalgia: a randomized, sham-controlled study. Pain Pract. 7, 297–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2007.00152.x
Sakrajai, P., Janyacharoen, T., Jensen, M. P., Sawanyawisuth, K., Auvichayapat, N., Tunkamnerdthai, O., et al. (2014). Pain reduction in myofascial pain syndrome by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with standard treatment: a randomized controlled study. Clin. J. Pain 30, 1076–1083. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000069
Sankarasubramanian, V., Cunningham, D., Potter, K., Beall, E., Roelle, S., Varnerin, N., et al. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation targeting primary motor versus dorsolateral prefrontal cortices: proof-of-concept study investigating functional connectivity of thalamo-cortical networks specific to sensory-affective information processing. Brain Connect. 7, 182–196. doi: 10.1089/brain.2016.0440
Schaffer, C. E., Davidson, R. J., and Saron, C. (1983). Frontal and parietal electroencephalogram asymmetry in depressed and nondepressed subjects. Biol. Psychiatry 18, 753–762.
Scholich, S. L., Hallner, D., Wittenberg, R. H., Hasenbring, M. I., and Rusu, A. C. (2012). The relationship between pain, disability, quality of life and cognitive-behavioural factors in chronic back pain. Disabil. Rehabil. 34, 1993–2000. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.667187
Seifert, F., and Maihöfner, C. (2009). Central mechanisms of experimental and chronic neuropathic pain: findings from functional imaging studies. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 66, 375–390. doi: 10.1007/s00018-008-8428-0
Simis, M., Reidler, J. S., Duarte Macea, D., Moreno Duarte, I., Wang, X., Lenkinski, R., et al. (2015). Investigation of central nervous system dysfunction in chronic pelvic pain using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and noninvasive brain stimulation. Pain Pract. 15, 423–432. doi: 10.1111/papr.12202
Treede, R. D., Kenshalo, D. R., Gracely, R. H., and Jones, A. K. P. (1999). The cortical representation of pain. Pain 79, 105–111. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00184-5
Valle, A., Roizenblatt, S., Botte, S., Zaghi, S., Riberto, M., Tufik, S., et al. (2009). Efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the treatment of fibromyalgia: results of a randomized, sham-controlled longitudinal clinical trial. J. Pain Manag. 2, 353–361.
Viana, R. T., Laurentino, G. E. C., Souza, R. J. P., Fonseca, J. B., Silva Filho, E. M., Dias, S. N., et al. (2014). Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabilitation 34, 437–446. doi: 10.3233/NRE-141065
Wahl, A., Rustøen, T., Rokne, B., Lerdal, A., Knudsen, Ø., Miaskowski, C., et al. (2009). The complexity of the relationship between chronic pain and quality of life: a study of the general Norwegian population. Q. Life Res. 18, 971–980. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9515-x
Wranker, L. S., Rennemark, M., Berglund, J., and Elmståhl, S. (2014). Relationship between pain and quality of life-findings from the swedish national study on aging and care-blekinge study. Scand. J. Pain 5, 270–275. doi: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2014.05.029
Keywords: tDCS, neuromodulation, clinical trial design and conduct, neural engagement, brain networks
Citation: Thibaut A, Zafonte R, Morse LR and Fregni F (2017) Understanding Negative Results in tDCS Research: The Importance of Neural Targeting and Cortical Engagement. Front. Neurosci. 11:707. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00707
Received: 17 October 2017; Accepted: 01 December 2017;
Published: 12 December 2017.
Edited by:
Christopher S. Y. Benwell, University of Glasgow, United KingdomReviewed by:
Asif Jamil, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (LG), GermanyBernadette M. Fitzgibbon, Monash University, Australia
Copyright © 2017 Thibaut, Zafonte, Morse and Fregni. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Aurore Thibaut, athibaut@neuromodulationlab.org
Felipe Fregni, felipe.fregni@mgh.harvard.edu