Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of a common transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol on motor evoked potentials found to be highly variable within individuals over 9 testing sessions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses a weak electric current to modulate neuronal activity. A neurophysiologic outcome measure to demonstrate reliable tDCS modulation at the group level is transcranial magnetic stimulation engendered motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Here, we conduct a study testing the reliability of individual MEP response patterns following a common tDCS protocol. Fourteen participants (7m/7f) each underwent nine randomized sessions of 1 mA, 10 min tDCS (3 anode; 3 cathode; 3 sham) delivered using an M1/orbito-frontal electrode montage (sessions separated by an average of ~5.5 days). Fifteen MEPs were obtained prior to, immediately following and in 5 min intervals for 30 min following tDCS. TMS was delivered at 130 % resting motor threshold using neuronavigation to ensure consistent coil localization. A number of non-experimental variables were collected during each session. At the individual level, considerable variability was seen among different testing sessions. No participant demonstrated an excitatory response ≥20 % to all three anodal sessions, and no participant demonstrated an inhibitory response ≥20 % to all three cathodal sessions. Intra-class correlation revealed poor anodal and cathodal test–retest reliability [anode: ICC(2,1) = 0.062; cathode: ICC(2,1) = 0.055] and moderate sham test–retest reliability [ICC(2,1) = 0.433]. Results also revealed no significant effect of tDCS at the group level. Using this common protocol, we found the effects of tDCS on MEP amplitudes to be highly variable at the individual level. In addition, no significant effects of tDCS on MEP amplitude were found at the group level. Future studies should consider utilizing a more strict experimental protocol to potentially account for intra-individual response variations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amassian VE, Cracco RQ (1987) Human cerebral cortical responses to contralateral transcranial stimulation. Neurosurgery 20(1):148–155

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amassian VE, Cracco RQ, Maccabee PJ (1989) Focal stimulation of human cerebral cortex with the magnetic coil: a comparison with electrical stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 74(6):401–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ardolino G, Bossi B, Barbieri S, Priori A (2005) Non-synaptic mechanisms underlie the after-effects of cathodal transcutaneous direct current stimulation of the human brain. J Physiol 568(Pt 2):653–663. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2005.088310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bashir S, Perez J, Horvath JC, Pascual-Leone A (2013) Differentiation of motor cortical representation of hand muscles by navigated mapping of optimal TMS current directions in healthy subjects. J Clin Neurophysiol 30(4):390

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bastani A, Jaberzadeh S (2012) A higher number of TMS-elicited MEP from a combined hotspot improves intra-and inter-session reliability of the upper limb muscles in healthy individuals. PLoS One 7(10):e47582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bastani A, Jaberzadeh S (2013) Differential modulation of corticospinal excitability by different current densities of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. PLoS One 8(8):e72254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Batsikadze G, Moliadze V, Paulus W, Kuo MF, Nitsche MA (2013) Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J Physiol 591(7):1987–2000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bikson M, Datta A, Rahman A, Scaturro J (2010) Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: role of “return” electrode’s position and size. Clin Neurophysiol 121(12):1976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bradnam LV, Stinear CM, Byblow WD (2011) Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation suppresses ipsilateral projections to presumed propriospinal neurons of the proximal upper limb. J Neurophysiol 105(5):2582–2589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brasil-Neto JP, McShane LM, Fuhr P, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1992) Topographic mapping of the human motor cortex with magnetic stimulation: factors affecting accuracy and reproducibility. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 85(1):9–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chaieb L, Antal A, Paulus W (2008) Gender-specific modulation of short-term neuroplasticity in the visual cortex induced by transcranial direct current stimulation. Vis Neurosci 25(01):77–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chang WH, Fried PJ, Saxena S, Jannati A, Gomes-Osman J, Kim YH, Pascual-Leone A (2016) Optimal number of pulses as outcome measure in neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol [Epub ahead of print]

  • Chew T, Ho KA, Loo CK (2015) Inter- and intra-individual variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) at varying current intensities. Brain Stimul 8(6):1130–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Datta A, Baker JM, Bikson M, Fridriksson J (2011) Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient. Brain Stimul 4(3):169–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Tommaso M, Invitto S, Ricci K, Lucchese V, Delussi M, Quattromini P et al (2014) Effects of anodal TDCS stimulation of left parietal cortex on visual spatial attention tasks in men and women across menstrual cycle. Neurosci Lett 574:21–25. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2014.05.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Lazzaro V, Oliviero A, Pilato F, Saturno E, Dileone M, Mazzone P et al (2004) The physiological basis of transcranial motor cortex stimulation in conscious humans. Clin Neurophysiol 115(2):255–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Lazzaro V, Manganelli F, Dileone M, Notturno F, Esposito M, Capasso M et al (2012) The effects of prolonged cathodal direct current stimulation on the excitatory and inhibitory circuits of the ipsilateral and contralateral motor cortex. J Neural Transm 119(12):1499–1506. doi:10.1007/s00702-012-0845-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellaway PH, Davey NJ, Maskill DW, Rawlinson SR, Lewis HS, Anissimova NP (1998) Variability in the amplitude of skeletal muscle responses to magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 109(2):104–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujiyama H, Hyde J, Hinder MR, Kim SJ, McCormack GH, Vickers JC, Summers JJ (2014) Delayed plastic responses to anodal tDCS in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 6:10–3389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guggisberg AG, Dubach P, Hess CW, Wüthrich C, Mathis J (2001) Motor evoked potentials from masseter muscle induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the pyramidal tract: the importance of coil orientation. Clin Neurophysiol 112(12):2312–2319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn C, Rice J, Macuff S, Minhas P, Rahman A, Bikson M (2013) Methods for extra-low voltage transcranial direct current stimulation: current and time dependent impedance decreases. Clin Neurophysiol 124(3):551–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath JC (2015) Are current blinding methods for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effective in healthy populations? Clin Neurophysiol 126(11):2045–2046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath JC, Carter O, Forte JD (2014) Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren’t discussing (but probably should be). Front Syst Neurosci 8:2. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O (2015a) 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 66:213–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O (2015b) Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul 8(3):535–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson L, Koslowsky M, Lavidor M (2012) tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review. Exp Brain Res 216(1):1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Julkunen P, Säisänen L, Danner N, Niskanen E, Hukkanen T, Mervaala E, Könönen M (2009) Comparison of navigated and non-navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor cortex mapping, motor threshold and motor evoked potentials. Neuroimage 44(3):790–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG (1998) The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95(3):861–868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kasai T, Kawai S, Kawanishi M, Yahagi S (1997) Evidence for facilitation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by motor imagery. Brain Res 744(1):147–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiers L, Cros D, Chiappa KH, Fang J (1993) Variability of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 89(6):415–423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo HI, Bikson M, Datta A, Minhas P, Paulus W, Kuo MF, Nitsche MA (2013) Comparing cortical plasticity induced by conventional and high-definition 4 × 1 ring tDCS: a neurophysiological study. Brain Stimul 6(4):644–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Labruna L, Jamil A, Fresnoza S, Batsikadze G, Kuo MF et al (2016) Efficacy of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation is Related to Sensitivity to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Brain Stimul 9:8–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lang N, Nitsche MA, Paulus W, Rothwell JC, Lemon RN (2004a) Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the human motor cortex on corticospinal and transcallosal excitability. Exp Brain Res 156(4):439–443. doi:10.1007/s00221-003-1800-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lang N, Siebner HR, Ernst D, Nitsche MA, Paulus W, Lemon RN, Rothwell JC (2004b) Preconditioning with transcranial direct current stimulation sensitizes the motor cortex to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation and controls the direction of after-effects. Biol Psychiatry 56(9):634–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Rio-Rodriguez D, Fernandez-Del-Olmo M (2014) Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul 7(3):372–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • López-Alonso V, Fernández-del-Olmo M, Costantini A, Gonzalez-Henriquez JJ, Cheeran B (2015) Intra-individual variability in the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 126(12):2342–2347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan S, Stinear JW (2010) Focal and bi-directional modulation of lower limb motor cortex using anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul 3(1):42

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Miyaguchi S, Onishi H, Kojima S, Sugawara K, Tsubaki A, Kirimoto H et al (2013) Corticomotor excitability induced by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation with and without non-exhaustive movement. Brain Res 1529:83–91. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2013.07.026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monte-Silva K, Kuo MF, Thirugnanasambandam N, Liebetanz D, Paulus W, Nitsche MA (2009) Dose-dependent inverted U-shaped effect of dopamine (D2-like) receptor activation on focal and nonfocal plasticity in humans. J Neurosci 29(19):6124–6131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monte-Silva K, Kuo MF, Liebetanz D, Paulus W, Nitsche MA (2010) Shaping the optimal repetition interval for cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). J Neurophysiol 103(4):1735–1740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monte-Silva K, Kuo MF, Hessenthaler S, Fresnoza S, Liebetanz D, Paulus W, Nitsche MA (2013) Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul 6(3):424–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen JF (1996) Improvement of amplitude variability of motor evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis patients and in healthy subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 101(5):404–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2000) Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol 527(Pt 3):633–639

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2001) Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 57(10):1899–1901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche MA, Nitsche MS, Klein CC, Tergau F, Rothwell JC, Paulus W (2003) Level of action of cathodal DC polarisation induced inhibition of the human motor cortex. Clin Neurophysiol 114(4):600–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsche MA, Doemkes S, Karakose T, Antal A, Liebetanz D, Lang N et al (2007) Shaping the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 97(4):3109–3117. doi:10.1152/jn.01312.2006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell NE, Cossar J, Marston L, Wand BM, Bunce D, Moseley GL, De Souza LH (2012) Rethinking clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation: participant and assessor blinding is inadequate at intensities of 2mA. PLoS One 7(10):e47514. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047514

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Parkin BL, Ekhtiari H, Walsh VF (2015) Non-invasive human brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience: a primer. Neuron 87(5):932–945

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier SJ, Cicchetti F (2015) Cellular and molecular mechanisms of action of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence from in vitro and in vivo models. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 18(2):pyu047

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pellicciari MC, Brignani D, Miniussi C (2013) Excitability modulation of the motor system induced by transcranial direct current stimulation: a multimodal approach. Neuroimage 83:569–580. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plowman-Prine EK, Triggs WJ, Malcolm MP, Rosenbek JC (2008) Reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation for mapping swallowing musculature in the human motor cortex. Clin Neurophysiol 119(10):2298–2303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE (2002) Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med 21:2917–2930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Power HA, Norton JA, Porter CL, Doyle Z, Hui I, Chan KM (2006) Transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex affects cortical drive to human musculature as assessed by intermuscular coherence. J Physiol 577(Pt 3):795–803. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2006.116939

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Quartarone A, Morgante F, Bagnato S, Rizzo V, Sant’Angelo A, Aiello E et al (2004) Long lasting effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor imagery. NeuroReport 15(8):1287–1291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quartarone A, Rizzo V, Bagnato S, Morgante F, Sant’Angelo A, Romano M et al (2005) Homeostatic-like plasticity of the primary motor hand area is impaired in focal hand dystonia. Brain 128(8):1943–1950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roche N, Lackmy A, Achache V, Bussel B, Katz R (2011) Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the leg motor area on lumbar spinal network excitability in healthy subjects. J Physiol 589(Pt 11):2813–2826. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2011.205161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rosler KM, Roth DM, Magistris MR (2008) Trial-to-trial size variability of motor-evoked potentials. A study using the triple stimulation technique. Exp Brain Res 187(1):51–59. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1278-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rotenberg A, Horvath JC, Pascual-Leone A (2014) Transcranial magnetic stimulation. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roy Choudhury K, Boyle L, Burke M, Lombard W, Ryan S, McNamara B (2011) Intra subject variation and correlation of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Ir J Med Sci 180:873–880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royal I, Lidji P, Théoret H, Russo FA, Peretz I (2015) Excitability of the motor system: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study on singing and speaking. Neuropsychologia 75:525–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell M, Goodman T, Wang Q, Groshong B, Lyeth BG (2014) Gender differences in current received during transcranial electrical stimulation. Front Psychiatry 5:104. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00104

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Scelzo E, Giannicola G, Rosa M, Ciocca M, Ardolino G, Cogiamanian F et al (2011) Increased short latency afferent inhibition after anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurosci Lett 498(2):167–170. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2011.05.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schabrun SM, Chipchase LS, Zipf N, Thickbroom GW, Hodges PW (2013) Interaction between simultaneously applied neuromodulatory interventions in humans. Brain Stimul 6(4):624–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siebner HR, Lang N, Rizzo V, Nitsche MA, Paulus W, Lemon RN, Rothwell JC (2004) Preconditioning of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence for homeostatic plasticity in the human motor cortex. J Neurosci 24(13):3379–3385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simis M, Adeyemo BO, Medeiros LF, Miraval F, Gagliardi RJ, Fregni F (2013) Motor cortex-induced plasticity by noninvasive brain stimulation: a comparison between transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation. NeuroReport 24(17):973–975

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MJ, Keel JC, Greenberg BD, Adams LF, Schmidt PJ, Rubinow DA, Wassermann EM (1999) Menstrual cycle effects on cortical excitability. Neurology 53(9):2069–2072

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA (2011) Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist 17(1):37–53. doi:10.1177/1073858410386614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stinear CM, Byblow WD (2003) Motor imagery of phasic thumb abduction temporally and spatially modulates corticospinal excitability. Clin Neurophysiol 114(5):909–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki K, Fujiwara T, Tanaka N, Tsuji T, Masakado Y, Hase K et al (2012) Comparison of the after-effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex in patients with stroke and healthy volunteers. Int J Neurosci 122(11):675–681. doi:10.3109/00207454.2012.707715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teo JT, Bentley G, Lawrence P, Soltesz F, Miller S, Wille D et al (2014) Late cortical plasticity in motor and auditory cortex: role of met-allele in BDNF Val66Met polymorphism. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 17(5):705–713. doi:10.1017/S1461145713001636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay S, Beaule V, Lepage JF, Theoret H (2013) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation modulates GABAB-related intracortical inhibition in the M1 of healthy individuals. NeuroReport 24(1):46–50. doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e32835c36b8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wassermann E, Epstein C, Ziemann U (2008) Oxford handbook of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiethoff S, Hamada M, Rothwell JC (2014) Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. Brain Stimul 7(3):468–475. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2014.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf SL, Butler AJ, Campana GI, Parris TA, Struys DM, Weinstein SR, Weiss P (2004) Intra-subject reliability of parameters contributing to maps generated by transcranial magnetic stimulation in able-bodied adults. Clin Neurophysiol 115(8):1740–1747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ziemann U, Rothwell JC (2000) I-waves in motor cortex. J Clin Neurophysiol 17(4):397–405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

ARC-SRI: Science of Learning Research Centre (Project Number SR120300015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Redmond Barry Building, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Jared Cooney Horvath, Olivia Carter, Mark J. Cook & Jason D. Forte

  2. Departments of Medicine and Neurology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Jared Cooney Horvath, Simon J. Vogrin & Mark J. Cook

  3. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Jared Cooney Horvath

Authors
  1. Jared Cooney Horvath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon J. Vogrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivia Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark J. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason D. Forte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jared Cooney Horvath.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horvath, J.C., Vogrin, S.J., Carter, O. et al. Effects of a common transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol on motor evoked potentials found to be highly variable within individuals over 9 testing sessions. Exp Brain Res 234, 2629–2642 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4667-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4667-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation