Systematic comparison of sinusoidal and amplitude-modulated tACS effects on corticospinal excitability.
Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a noninvasive technique for modulating brain oscillations. While sinusoidal tACS (sin-tACS) delivers current at a constant amplitude, amplitude-modulated tACS (AM-tACS) uses a high-frequency carrier modulated by a low-frequency envelope. We systematically compared the acute effects of sin-tACS at theta (5 Hz), alpha (10 Hz), beta (20 Hz), and gamma (140 Hz) frequencies, and AM-tACS (140 Hz carrier frequency modulated at theta, alpha, or beta) on corticospinal excitability. Healthy participants received 2 mA peak-to-peak tACS to the primary motor hand area (M1HAND) via a bipolar montage (M1HAND-Pz). Each tACS block consisted of ten 30-second stimulation periods interleaved with 6-second pauses, followed by 11 minutes without stimulation. Corticospinal excitability was assessed during each block using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), delivered at the peak and trough of tACS. MEP amplitudes were generally larger at the trough. Only beta sin-tACS and theta AM-tACS significantly modulated corticospinal excitability. Beta sin-tACS increased MEP amplitudes in early stimulation epochs, while theta AM-tACS facilitated MEPs in later stimulation epochs and this facilitation persisted briefly after stimulation ended. Participants with stronger early responses to beta sin-tACS also tended to show greater delayed effects with theta AM-tACS. These excitability changes during tACS were not predicted by simulated electric field strength. A follow-up EEG experiment revealed that beta sin-tACS increased beta power over left sensorimotor cortex, while theta AM-tACS decreased beta power over midline parietal cortex. These EEG changes were restricted to tACS pauses. The results show that sin-tACS and AM-tACS can both modulate corticospinal excitability, but functional changes differ in temporal dynamics, frequency specificity, and cortical region engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takemi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: