About this Research Topic
The goal of Non-Invasive Transcranial Brain Stimulations (NIBS) is to influence brain activity with as little side effects as possible in order to modulate cognition or perception. Its application is not limited to basic science but includes also clinical research, aiming to ameliorate dysfunctional processes.
Since the re-discovery of transcranial Electric Stimulation (tES), one of the most commonly used NIBS methods, in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the field has been very enthusiastic towards the potential of the method. However, more recently a number of studies and meta-analyses have raised doubts on the efficacy of not only NIBS but of tES in particular, and the reproducibility of results. However, only a small number of studies have focused on interindividual susceptibility to tES, which might, at least partially, explain the inconsistency of outcome results. Taking into account interindividual differences in (neuro-)anatomy, cortical excitability, or neurotransmitter levels might represent one viable approach to avoid such confounding factors. Apart from physiological determinants of stimulation, which generally affect both inter- and intra-subject variability, there are a number of other methodological factors, for instance intensity, electrode montage, stimulation duration, and frequency which have to be taken into account. Moreover, most of the studies investigating effects of tES compare group means, which do not offer much information about the within-subject response variability.
This Research Topic aims to elucidate more on the individual variability of NIBS efficacy. We therefore welcome a number of contribution formats, such as opinions and review articles that help to understand the nature of interindividual tES efficacy. Furthermore, we explicitly encourage researchers to (re)-investigate data sets that showed inconclusive results or where the alternative hypothesis had to be rejected. These re-analyses could be particularly enlightening in regards to stimulation parameters that lead to variable results. In addition, modelling studies focusing on parameters that vary interindividually are welcome.
We here strive to shed more light on:
1) the mechanisms of action in that (neuro-) physiological parameters shape tES-effects
2) measures that quantify this variability
3) protocols that consider this variability
We welcome submissions on human and animal research both in vitro and in vivo as well as modelling studies providing they are in line with the aim of the Research Topic with a clear statement about the definition of the sample size is included.
We hope to bring together articles that will help to overcome the current “one-size-fits-all approach” towards a specific, focal, and tailored tES-application.
Since the re-discovery of transcranial Electric Stimulation (tES), one of the most commonly used NIBS methods, in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the field has been very enthusiastic towards the potential of the method. However, more recently a number of studies and meta-analyses have raised doubts on the efficacy of not only NIBS but of tES in particular, and the reproducibility of results. However, only a small number of studies have focused on interindividual susceptibility to tES, which might, at least partially, explain the inconsistency of outcome results. Taking into account interindividual differences in (neuro-)anatomy, cortical excitability, or neurotransmitter levels might represent one viable approach to avoid such confounding factors. Apart from physiological determinants of stimulation, which generally affect both inter- and intra-subject variability, there are a number of other methodological factors, for instance intensity, electrode montage, stimulation duration, and frequency which have to be taken into account. Moreover, most of the studies investigating effects of tES compare group means, which do not offer much information about the within-subject response variability.
This Research Topic aims to elucidate more on the individual variability of NIBS efficacy. We therefore welcome a number of contribution formats, such as opinions and review articles that help to understand the nature of interindividual tES efficacy. Furthermore, we explicitly encourage researchers to (re)-investigate data sets that showed inconclusive results or where the alternative hypothesis had to be rejected. These re-analyses could be particularly enlightening in regards to stimulation parameters that lead to variable results. In addition, modelling studies focusing on parameters that vary interindividually are welcome.
We here strive to shed more light on:
1) the mechanisms of action in that (neuro-) physiological parameters shape tES-effects
2) measures that quantify this variability
3) protocols that consider this variability
We welcome submissions on human and animal research both in vitro and in vivo as well as modelling studies providing they are in line with the aim of the Research Topic with a clear statement about the definition of the sample size is included.
We hope to bring together articles that will help to overcome the current “one-size-fits-all approach” towards a specific, focal, and tailored tES-application.
Keywords: NIBS, tES, tACS, tDCS, variability, null findings, efficacy
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
