Effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on cerebellar-brain inhibition in humans: A systematic evaluation

• Main Authors: Giorgi Batsikadze, Zeynab Rezaee, Dae-In Chang, Marcus Gerwig, Stefan Herlitze, Anirban Dutta, Michael A. Nitsche, Dagmar Timmann
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2019-09-01
• Series: Brain Stimulation
• Subjects: Cerebellum; Cerebellar-brain inhibition; Neuroplasticity; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X19302013

Background: Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) is increasingly used to modulate cerebellar excitability and plasticity in healthy subjects and various patient populations. ctDCS parameters are poorly standardized, and its physiology remains little understood. Our aim was to compare the physiological effects of three different non-target electrode positions (buccinator muscle, supraorbital region, deltoid muscle). Methods: In the first experiment, physiological after-effects of ctDCS were compared based on cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI) in a group of 15 healthy right-handed participants. In the second experiment, CBI after-effects of ctDCS were assessed using different transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) intensities in 14 participants (CBI recruitment curve). The electric field distribution was calculated for each of the electrode montages based on a single anatomically accurate head model. Results: Anodal and cathodal ctDCS polarities significantly decreased cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI) with no substantial differences between the montages. Lower cerebellar TMS intensities resulted in decreased CBI following cathodal and increased CBI after anodal ctDCS. Computational modeling revealed minor differences in the electric field distribution between non-target electrode positions based on the effect size. Conclusion: Our results show that the non-target electrode position has no significant impact on modeling results and physiological ctDCS after-effects. The recruitment of the cerebellar-M1 connection, however, varied depending on ctDCS polarity and cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation intensity, possibly due to diverse effects on different cell populations in the cerebellar cortex. This may be one of the reasons why ctDCS effects on functional measures are difficult to predict.