Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Sailing in a sea of disbelief: In vivo measurements of transcranial electric stimulation in human subcortical structures

2017; Elsevier BV; Volume: 11; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.brs.2017.09.015

1935-861X

Philipp Ruhnau, Katharina S. Rufener, H.–J. Heinze, Tino Zaehle,

Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction

In 2016, György Buzsáki shocked the scientific field of transcranial electric stimulation (tES) when he showed that only a small amount of electric current applied to the scalp of a cadaver (app. 10%) can be measured in the brain [ [1] Underwood E. NEUROSCIENCE. Cadaver study challenges brain stimulation methods. Science. 2016; 352 (397–7)https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6284.397 Crossref Scopus (29) Google Scholar ]. This came after substantial criticism of the technique that had been building in the two years prior [e.g., [ [2] Horvath J.C. Forte J.D. Carter O. Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: a systematic review. Neuropsychologia. 2015; 66: 213-236https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.021 Crossref PubMed Scopus (309) Google Scholar ]. So for tES critics the 'cadaver study' [ [1] Underwood E. NEUROSCIENCE. Cadaver study challenges brain stimulation methods. Science. 2016; 352 (397–7)https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6284.397 Crossref Scopus (29) Google Scholar ] - though never published in a peer-reviewed journal and having its own methodological issues - was the final proof that there is nothing stimulating about transcranial brain stimulation. Scientists in the field, however, have evaluated these criticisms and are actively reconsidering the quality requirements for tES studies. This, in fact, was Buzsáki's stated goal when presenting the aforementioned measurements, and he did the field a favor by encouraging more systematic investigations to understand the mechanisms behind tES.