Abstract
The pathophysiological mechanisms that underlie the generation and maintenance of tinnitus are being unraveled progressively. Based on this knowledge, a large variety of different neuromodulatory interventions have been developed and are still being designed, adapting to the progressive mechanistic insights in the pathophysiology of tinnitus. rTMS targeting the temporal, temporoparietal, and the frontal cortex has been the mainstay of non-invasive neuromodulation. Yet, the evidence is still unclear, and therefore systematic meta-analyses are needed for drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of rTMS in chronic tinnitus. Different forms of transcranial electrical stimulation (tDCS, tACS, tRNS), applied over the frontal and temporal cortex, have been investigated in tinnitus patients, also without robust evidence for universal efficacy. Cortex and deep brain stimulation with implanted electrodes have shown benefit, yet there is insufficient data to support their routine clinical use. Recently, bimodal stimulation approaches have revealed promising results and it appears that targeting different sensory modalities in temporally combined manners may be more promising than single target approaches.
While most neuromodulatory approaches seem promising, further research is required to help translating the scientific outcomes into routine clinical practice.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Tinnitus can be defined as the conscious awareness of a non-complex sound for which there is no identifiable corresponding external sound source (Jastreboff 1990). Tinnitus occurs in 5–15% of the population (Axelsson and Ringdahl 1989; Heller 2003). Whereas most patients (80%) can habituate to this sound, quality of life is severely disrupted in about 20–25% of the patients who cannot cope with the tinnitus (Axelsson and Ringdahl 1989; Vanneste et al. 2014). In these patients, tinnitus is frequently associated with anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, and sleep disturbances (Bhatt et al. 2017; Vanneste et al. 2016; Y. Wang et al. 2018b), and tinnitus becomes a mental disorder. Tinnitus disorder can therefore be diagnosed in cases of tinnitus with tinnitus-associated suffering.
Although many treatments have been proposed, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, some of which are commercially available, evidence for a successful therapy that benefits everybody with tinnitus is lacking (Dobie 1999; Langguth et al. 2013). The lack of efficacious treatments for tinnitus likely originates from the heterogeneity of tinnitus and an incomplete understanding of the pathophysiology of the different forms of tinnitus (Elgoyhen et al. 2015).
Since 2011 pharmaceutical interest in developing neuropharmacological products for neurological or psychiatric indications has dramatically declined. Big Pharma has invested 50% less for brain related disorders (Yokley et al. 2017), because it is too expensive and too risky. Developing medication for brain disorders has 50% less chance of making it to the market (6.2% vs 13.3%) (Gribkoff and Kaczmarek 2017), takes 30% longer to develop (19.3 vs 14.7 months) (Gribkoff and Kaczmarek 2017), and costs 30% more than heart medication (Gribkoff and Kaczmarek 2017). Eighty percent of medications fail phase III trials (Kesselheim et al. 2015), predominantly because they do not outperform placebo (46%) (Kesselheim et al. 2015). Thus, notwithstanding repurposing of existing medication (Pushpakom et al. 2019), the likelihood of a pharmaceutical solution for tinnitus and tinnitus disorder is therefore limited. As such, other treatment options need to be investigated, one of which is brain stimulation. The history and evolution of the understanding of the pathophysiology of tinnitus goes hand in hand with the development of brain stimulation approaches.
2 History and Evolution of the Pathophysiology of Tinnitus
Tinnitus is an enigmatic symptom. Even the earliest historic reference, dating back to the 19th CBC, in the Ebers papyrus, in which tinnitus was considered the consequence of a bewitched ear, is controversial (Dietrich 2004) (Fig. 1). Tinnitus as a problem of the ear, caused by hearing loss, predominated until the 1990s, and consequently treatment focused on improving hearing function and masking of sound. In 1990 Jastreboff developed a theoretical neurophysiological model implying that the phantom sound was the consequence of classical conditioning (Jastreboff 1990). The neurophysiological model focused on the distress associated with tinnitus, and lead to the development of Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT). TRT comprises directive counselling and potential use of hearing aids and sound therapy, not with the goal of complete masking, but to facilitate habituation of tinnitus reaction and possibly perception. But Jastreboff did not specify which neuroanatomical structures were involved in this conditioning, so the brain components involved remained inside a black box. In 1999 Rodolfo Llinas published the first paper that specifically proposed a pathophysiological model implying the interaction between the auditory cortex and thalamus as the generator of tinnitus, called thalamocortical dysrhythmia (R. R. Llinas et al. 1999). It is based on the clinical evidence that tinnitus, in most cases, is associated with hearing loss or abnormalities in the inner ear or the peripheral auditory pathway, which results in neuroplastic changes in auditory and non-auditory brain networks (De Ridder et al. 2014d). However, some forms of tinnitus exist in which tinnitus is unrelated to hearing loss, and this seems to be associated with a different underlying pathophysiological mechanism (Vanneste et al. 2019; Vanneste and De Ridder 2015), possibly requiring different neuromodulation targeting. Whether tinnitus without hearing loss is fundamentally different or a variation of the same underlying pathophysiology still remains to be proven, as tinnitus without audiometric hearing loss does not imply that there is no auditory deafferentation (Weisz et al. 2006). The thalamocortical dysrhythmia model of Llinas states that in the deafferented state, the dominant resting-state alpha rhythm (8–12 Hz) slows down to theta (4–7 Hz) (R. R. Llinas et al. 1999) band frequencies. Even though it is called theta, from an electrophysiological point of view it should be considered slowed alpha activity, as the neural generators of true theta activity are different from the generators of alpha and slowed alpha activity (Tsanov 2015; Whittington et al. 2018). In the awake state, the thalamocortical loops within the brain idle around 10 Hz (8–12 Hz), called the alpha frequency, generated by the thalamus. During light sleep, theta band activity is predominant, generated by the septal nuclei and hippocampus, and in deep sleep delta activity (1–3 Hz) predominates (G Buzsaki 2006). The theta that emerges in thalamocortical dysrhythmia is thalamically generated and therefore more likely represents alpha activity that is slowed down to the theta frequency range. Conceptually, this can be explained as a decrease of the firing rate when less information needs to be processed (Borst and Theunissen 1999) due to the deafferentation, and that firing and oscillation rate are coupled at the thalamocortical level (Crunelli et al. 2018; R. Llinas et al. 2005). As a consequence, GABAA mediated lateral inhibition weakens (R. Llinas et al. 2005), inducing gamma (>30 Hz) band activity (R. R. Llinas et al. 1999) surrounding the deafferented theta area, also known as the edge effect (R. Llinas et al. 2005). Confirming the initial studies by Llinas (R. Llinas et al. 2005; R. R. Llinas et al. 1999) a decrease in alpha power is associated with an increase in gamma power (Lorenz et al. 2009), and gamma is coupled to theta activity (Weisz et al. 2007). Other studies have since demonstrated the presence of both low (delta or theta) and high frequency activity in the auditory cortex of tinnitus patients (Adamchic et al. 2012, 2014; Adjamian et al. 2012; Ramirez et al. 2009), and the theta-gamma cross-frequency coupling has also been identified on electrode recordings of implanted patients (De Ridder et al. 2011b), confirming the MEG data.
Theta activity is associated with negative symptoms such as hearing loss (and hypoesthesia in the somatosensory system), and gamma activity reflects the positive symptoms, tinnitus (pain in the somatosensory system) in diseases characterized by thalamocortical dysrhythmia (R. Llinas et al. 2005; R. R. Llinas and Steriade 2006). Thus negative symptoms (e.g., hearing loss, hypoesthesia) are linked to decreased information processing and therefore slowed alpha activity, as if the deafferented thalamocortical columns are “as asleep”(R. Llinas et al. 2005). It has been proposed that this theta could then act as a long range carrier wave (Freeman 2003, 2005; Freeman and Rogers 2002) on which the tinnitus information can be nested by means of high frequency oscillatory activity (De Ridder et al. 2015b; De Ridder et al. 2014d). If this model is universal, then that would imply that all tinnitus patients could be treated by auditory cortex stimulation, whether non-invasively or invasively. The first attempts to test this theory were performed with transcranial magnetic stimulation and brain implants (De Ridder et al. 2004; Eichhammer et al. 2003a; Plewnia et al. 2003).
However, early research of TMS and implants demonstrated that not every person suffering from tinnitus could be helped with auditory cortex stimulation. Different explanations were postulated for this including the duration of the tinnitus (De Ridder et al. 2005; Kleinjung et al. 2007), the gender of the tinnitus patients (De Ridder et al. 2007d), the amount of hearing loss (Kleinjung et al. 2007), the tinnitus pitch (De Ridder et al. 2007d), the perceived laterality, left or right side, of the tinnitus (De Ridder et al. 2007d), laterality of the tinnitus generator in the brain (De Ridder 2010; Langguth et al. 2006), and also TMS related aspects such as the delivered dose (Plewnia et al. 2007). The failure in obtaining predictable and clinically satisfying results prompted the proposal of a novel pathophysiological model, in which the tinnitus percept would not be phrenologically limited to the auditory cortex but to a tinnitus-associated network (Schlee et al. 2009a, b). Even though that network dynamically changes, adapting to externally and internally generated triggers, on average it remains fairly stable, so that it could be averaged over 5–20 min recording intervals, with the current MEG and EEG technology (De Ridder et al. 2011a; Schlee et al. 2009a, b). Translating theoretical concepts from network science (Albert et al. 2000) to brain stimulation, it was hypothesized that directing stimulation at more than one target could disrupt the tinnitus network more effectively than one single target. As the frontal cortex was already a somewhat successful target for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (De Ridder and Vanneste 2012; Frank et al. 2011; Song et al. 2012; To et al. 2017; Vanneste and De Ridder 2011; Vanneste et al. 2011) and TMS (De Ridder et al. 2012a, c; Vanneste and De Ridder 2012a), the first multitarget stimulations selected the frontal cortex and temporoparietal junction (auditory cortex) (Kreuzer et al. 2011), but later attempts also used auditory cortex and high cervical C2 area (De Ridder and Vanneste 2015), using the same reasoning. Because the success rate was not high, these network science based models were modified for tinnitus to employ both random and targeted modulation on the tinnitus network (Mohan et al. 2017). The restricted benefits of neurostimulation based on the distributed network model led to investigation of an alternative model, in which tinnitus was the result of a deficient noise cancelling mechanism (Leaver et al. 2011; Rauschecker et al. 2010), analogous to pain (Fields 2004; Kong et al. 2010). However, according to this model the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex was critically involved in tinnitus generation, a difficult neuroanatomical target for current brain stimulation technologies. Furthermore, other groups failed to replicate the imaging data on which the model was based. A further model was proposed that tinnitus could actually be the result of a Bayesian prediction error (De Ridder et al. 2014a, c). According to this model tinnitus can be understood as the result of a mismatch between the predicted sound percept and the actual neural input from the ear, which is reduced because of hearing loss. It was hoped that the underlying anatomical and oscillatory correlates could be targeted with brain stimulation. It also theorized that neuroplastic changes involved in tinnitus were multiphasic, suggesting a theoretical difference between the neural generators of tinnitus in tinnitus with and without deafferentation. As such, the model attempted to combine and integrate both the deafferentation based theories and the noise cancelling theories (De Ridder et al. 2014a, c, d).
Using a sliding window analysis method combined with graph theoretical analyses permitted the development of a dynamical tinnitus network, in which the tinnitus sound is the consequence of the auditory cortex constantly looking for missing information, in keeping with the Bayesian tinnitus concept. Distress is associated with the loss of temporal flexibility (Mohan et al. 2018a, b). This model has not yet led to novel therapeutic approaches.
In a further attempt to integrate both the deafferentation based and noise cancelling models it has recently been proposed that tinnitus could be the result of an imbalance between bottom-up and top-down influences (Vanneste et al. 2019), which would make very clear predictions on what targets to apply which kind of brain stimulation (Fig. 1).
3 A Theory of Symptom Generation in the Brain
The brain can be seen as a complex adaptive system (Freeman et al. 2001; Sporns et al. 2004), similar to the world wide web, the climate, the economy, or an ant society (Holland 2014). In order to qualify as a complex adaptive system, a system has to fulfill two criteria (Amaral et al. 2004): (1) its structure follows a small world topology and (2) the system has to embed noise (Amaral et al. 2004). The reason for these criteria relates to the adaptiveness of the system. Network systems can be topologically structured in three ways (Bullmore and Sporns 2012). At one extreme, the network can have a lattice or regular topology, which means that every stimulus will always result in exactly the same processing, which is both predictive and efficient but not adaptive whatsoever (Catania 2009). At the other extreme, a system can be completely random, which is inefficient and disadvantageous because every stimulus will always have a completely random response. An intermediate structure between regular and random has a small world topology, which permits flexibility and adaptiveness to changing environments through variability. As such, such a system can learn (Bassett et al. 2006; Karuza et al. 2016). The brain has a small world structure and thus fulfills the first criterion (Achard et al. 2006; Bassett et al. 2006; Bullmore and Sporns 2009; Eguiluz et al. 2005). The brain is also noisy, fulfilling the second criterion, but the noise is structured, generally following a power law distribution (G. Buzsaki and Mizuseki 2014), i.e. a pink (1/f) or brown (1/f2) noise structure. This structured noise has an advantage that it has memory and can carry information, in contrast to white noise which is an unstructured completely random noise (Keshner 1982). Thus, such a system can learn, is flexible, while still maintaining stability. Since small worlds are adaptive, implanting electrodes in an adaptive system such as the brain makes intuitive sense as a means to modify its structure and thus its function. In a regular network or completely random system, the same concept would make little to no sense: a regular system would respond identical with or without stimulation and a random system would respond differently to every stimulus. One of the most important fundamental characteristics of every complex adaptive system is emergence: the whole is more than the sum of its components and cannot be predicted from its constituent parts. The whole has new properties that depend on the very specific connectivity between the parts. A collection of car parts is not a car. Only when all parts are put together (i.e., connected) in a very specific way does a functional car emerge. Yet, a simple car is complex but non-adaptive. It doesn’t reconfigure itself based on a changing environment. Bees do, ants do, our brain does and so does the internet. Emergentism in the philosophy of mind supports the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of brain function, and by extension, that every thought, feeling, action is the consequence of specific connectivity patterns resulting from adaptive neuroplasticity, and every symptom or disease is the result of maladaptive plasticity (Fornito and Bullmore 2014). Thus, using TMS or transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), or implanting electrodes on the cortex should change or use the brain’s connectivity in order to create a change in symptoms (De Ridder et al. 2017).
Neuroplasticity can operationally be defined as the brain’s capacity to modify its structure and function in order to adjust to a changing environment. However, these adaptive brain changes can be both adaptive and maladaptive, i.e. can lead to learning how to adjust to a changing environment but can also lead to symptoms. Any changes in the external or internal environment lead to neuroplasticity, i.e. both deprivation of input or increased environmental stimulation. These adaptive changes can be modulated by adrenal and gonadal hormones, neurotransmitters, growth factors, certain drugs, and aging (Fuchs and Flugge 2014). This results in adaptive changes at multiple scales: molecular and neurobiochemical changes, synaptic adjustments, neurogenesis, connectivity, and network changes (Fuchs and Flugge 2014). From a clinical perspective, neuroplasticity can be visualized by structural and functional brain imaging as changes in structure, activity, and connectivity. Changes in connectivity can be differentiated in structural, functional, and effective connectivity (Bassett et al. 2006; Lewis et al. 2009). Structural connectivity refers to anatomical changes in the brain (Hagmann et al. 2008), functional connectivity refers to co-activation of different brain areas (Friston 2011), and effective connectivity identifies from where to where the information flows in the brain, and can thus be seen as a form of directional functional connectivity (Friston 2011). This reorganization facilitates stability in constantly changing functional and effective connectivity networks, which results in changing emergent properties, like altered percepts, thoughts, emotions, actions, symptoms, etc.
3.1 Neuromodulation as Targeted Neuroplasticity
Neuromodulation and neurostimulation or brain stimulation are being used interchangeably. Yet, neuromodulation is becoming the preferred term because it doesn’t carry the connotation of activation, which seems to be inherently implied with neurostimulation. Indeed, if the electrical or magnetic stimuli reach a brain area in which GABA receptors predominate, the clinical effect can be inhibitory. And neuromodulation means influencing brain activity (and connectivity), without suggesting the influence is excitatory.
Neuromodulation can be operationally defined as the induction of neuroplastic changes via targeted application of electrical, magnetic, sound (including ultrasound), optical or pharmacological stimuli. This is a broader definition than the one used by the International Neuromodulation Society: “Neuromodulation is technology that acts directly upon nerves. It is the alteration – or modulation – of nerve activity by delivering electrical or pharmaceutical agents directly to a target area” (http://www.neuromodulation.com/about-neuromodulation).
Neuromodulation can be performed on any part of the nervous system, from the peripheral nerve field, to specific peripheral or autonomic nerves, to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), the spinal cord, the brainstem, or the brain. In brain stimulation, a distinction can be made between cortex stimulation and deep brain stimulation, but even here the terminology is not always uniform (De Ridder et al. 2017). For example, wire electrodes have been implanted inside the anterior cingulate gyrus and this procedure was called deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior cingulate (Boccard et al. 2014), whereas paddle electrodes have been implanted onto the same target (De Ridder et al. 2016a, b; Leong et al. 2020) and this qualifies as cortex stimulation. The same can be said for deep brain stimulation of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (Brodmann area 25) for major depressive disorder. In essence, it is intracortical stimulation (with wire electrodes) of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, in which the electrodes are inserted inside the cortex rather than onto the cortex (Mayberg et al. 2005). The same terminological confusion exists for tinnitus. Whereas in most studies the electrodes are implanted extradurally or intradurally overlying the primary or secondary auditory cortex, respectively (De Ridder et al. 2004, 2006a, 2007a, b, 2008, 2010, 2011b; Friedland et al. 2007; Litre et al. 2009), some patients have been treated with wire electrodes implanted inside the auditory cortex (Seidman et al. 2008). We will consider any form of cortical stimulation, whether intracortical or onto the cortex, as cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation as specifically targeting deep nuclei, rather than cortical structures.
3.2 Mechanism of Action of Cortex Stimulation
A better understanding of how cortex stimulation exerts its beneficial effect is essential; this requires a better understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in tinnitus generation. Symptoms are emergent properties resulting from maladaptive network activity, and not phrenological activity of one area in the brain (Barabasi et al. 2011; Fornito and Bullmore 2014; Fornito et al. 2015). Indeed, when patients in vegetative state, who have no conscious awareness, are presented with a sound, their auditory cortex is functionally and metabolically activated, yet there is no conscious sound perception (Boly et al. 2005). This suggests that activity in the auditory cortex per se is insufficient for conscious awareness, as has been discussed and demonstrated in the visual cortex (Crick and Koch 1995; Melloni et al. 2007). Only if the auditory cortex is functionally connected to a consciousness supporting network do auditory stimuli become accessible for conscious perception, analogous to what has been shown for painful stimuli (Demertzi et al. 2012; Laureys et al. 2000, 2002). These consciousness supporting networks consist of the self-representational default mode network and the attentional frontal parietal network (Akeju et al. 2014). Therefore it is plausible that the auditory cortex has to be functionally connected to the default mode network and frontoparietal attention network to permit conscious awareness of the presented stimulus.
It has been proposed that the presence of functional connections might be an essential requirement for transmitting the cortically applied stimulus into a wider network associated with the emergent property, i.e. tinnitus, that requires treatment (De Ridder et al. 2016a; Fox et al. 2014). When comparing success and failures to auditory cortex stimulation via implanted electrodes, the functional connectivity between the auditory cortex and the parahippocampus was critical for obtaining a beneficial result (De Ridder and Vanneste 2014). The importance of functional connectivity is similar to what was suggested for anterior cingulate implants (De Ridder et al. 2016a) and is in keeping with what has been shown for non-invasive brain stimulation in multiple neurological and psychiatric disorders (Fox et al. 2014). Indeed, it was shown that a lack of functional connectivity identified sites where stimulation was ineffective, and the sign of the correlation related to whether excitatory or inhibitory non-invasive stimulation was found to be clinically effective. These results suggested that resting-state functional connectivity may be useful for both optimizing treatment and identifying new stimulation targets (Fox et al. 2014).
In summary, if the cortical target is part of a symptom generating network, the stimulation might be beneficial, whereas stimulation of a cortical target that is not functionally connected to the symptom generating network might not be beneficial (De Ridder et al. 2017) (Fig. 2).
3.2.1 Brain Stimulation Techniques in the Treatment of Tinnitus
Brain stimulation can be performed in two ways, non-invasively and invasively, in other words with or without surgery involved. Non-invasive brain stimulation encompasses transcranial magnetic stimulation (Barker 1999; Barker et al. 1985) and transcranial electrical stimulation (Moreno-Duarte et al. 2014; Paulus 2011; Vanneste et al. 2013a).
3.2.2 TMS for Treating Tinnitus
In 1985 it was demonstrated that it is possible to depolarize neurons in the brain using external magnetic stimulation (Barker et al. 1985). Unlike electrical stimuli, magnetic stimuli are not attenuated by the bone of the skull. The skull has 8–15 times the resistivity of soft tissues (Barker et al. 1985). Indeed, for electrical stimuli it has been calculated that 75% of the applied current is blocked by the skull (Voroslakos et al. 2018). Magnetic stimulation of the cortex is particularly effective because of the ability of the magnetic field to pass through high-resistance structures. TMS produces a magnetic field of the same size as that of an MRI scanner, i.e. 1–3 Tesla, but that only lasts for about a millisecond (Walsh and Rushworth 1999). Because the magnetic field changes very rapidly (from zero to a very high value, then back to zero again in 1 ms), based on Faraday’s law, it induces electrical currents in the area of the brain beneath the coil. Effectively, the magnetic field “carries” the electrical stimulus across the barrier of the skull and scalp into the brain (Ridding and Rothwell 2007). The induced current pulse lasts for about 200 μs and is similar in amplitude to that produced by a conventional stimulator applied directly to the surface of the brain (Ridding and Rothwell 2007). It is thought to activate the axons of neurons in the cortex and subcortical white matter, rather than the cell bodies of cortical neurons (which have a much higher threshold) (Ridding and Rothwell 2007) a longer pulse width (>1,000 μs) is required (Ranck 1975).
There are two important limitations of TMS: (1) the magnetic field falls off rapidly with distance from the coil surface, limiting direct stimulation to the superficial parts of the cerebral cortex immediately under the skull, and (2) the site of stimulation is not as focal as direct electrical stimulation of the brain with inserted electrodes (Ridding and Rothwell 2007), even though a 2 mm precision can be reached when neuronavigation is used (Schonfeldt-Lecuona et al. 2005), improving further to 1.3 mm when robotic neuronavigated positioning is used (Goetz et al. 2019). This reaches the intrinsic resolution of the structural and functional imaging itself: At 3 T, MRI machines can resolve details of the brain as small as 1 mm. That resolution can be as fine as 0.5 mm in a 7-T machine (Nowogrodzki 2018).
Magnetic coils can have different shapes: round, figure of eight, double cone coil, and H-coils. Round coils are relatively powerful but less focal. Figure-eight-shaped coils are more focal with a maximal current at the intersection of the two round components (Rossini et al. 2015). Double cone coils and H-coils penetrate deeper and can, for example, reach the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex (Carmi et al. 2019; Hayward et al. 2007). Due to the strong decline of the magnetic field with increasing distance from the coil, direct stimulation effects are limited to superficial cortical areas. However, stimulation effects can propagate to functionally connect remote areas: low frequency TMS can increase functional connectivity, whereas high frequency TMS can decrease functional connectivity (Fox et al. 2012).
Based on TMS studies of the motor cortex it has been shown through electromyographic recordings of the activated muscles that TMS has a double effect. A single TMS stimulus evokes a burst of activity that can last for 5–10 ms after the pulse (Day et al. 1987), which is followed by a period lasting 100–200 ms during which activity is suppressed (Ridding and Rothwell 2007). The effect of the TMS pulse is brain state dependent, as well as dependent on the position and orientation of the stimulation coil and the exact site of stimulation (Ridding and Rothwell 2007). For example, if a TMS stimulus is given during sleep, anesthesia or coma, the stimulus will only exert a local effect and will not spread through the brain, in contrast to an awake state (Massimini et al. 2005). Furthermore, TMS efficacy seems to be dependent on the stimulated person’s genetic polymorphism. Certain genes such as BDNF and 5-HT(1A) influence the sensitivity to non-invasive stimulation, both TMS and tDCS (Cheeran et al. 2008; Malaguti et al. 2011). In view of the interindividual anatomical variability of the brain, it has been suggested that the efficacy can be improved by using neuronavigated TMS based on the individual’s brain structure obtained by structural or functional imaging (Fleming et al. 2012). The interindividual variability between the location of the sylvian sulcus and superior temporal sulcus that borders the auditory cortex is 1.5–2 cm (Steinmetz et al. 1990), suggesting that indeed a navigated approach makes sense. Concomitant intake of medication such as benzodiazepines (Deppe et al. 2020; Hunter et al. 2019), psychostimulants (Hunter et al. 2019), or neuroleptics (Hebel et al. 2020) can influence the effect of rTMS, but other medication such as anti-migraine medication does not seem to influence the treatment effect by TMS (Almaraz et al. 2010). For example, whereas concomitant benzodiazepines decrease the efficacy of TMS as a treatment for depression (Deppe et al. 2020; Hunter et al. 2019), concomitant psychostimulants increase the efficacy (Hunter et al. 2019).
Device related parameters determine the effect and side effects of TMS. The type of coil used also influences the reliability of the TMS (Fleming et al. 2012). Stimulation parameters such as stimulation frequency and amplitude influence the effect of the TMS as well (Speer et al. 2000).
Whereas single magnetic pulses only exert an immediate effect, the application of multiple pulses repetitively, called repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), can have long-lasting effects that outlast the stimulation period.
In summary, many patient-dependent and device-related factors determine the outcome of transcranial magnetic stimulation (Table 1)
It is assumed that high frequency stimulation (HFS) and low frequency stimulation (LFS) have opposite effects (Table 2), as demonstrated by functional imaging, with HFS exerting an increased metabolism and LFS a decreased metabolism (Kimbrell et al. 1999; Speer et al. 2000). The effects on excitability and plasticity are opposite as well: whereas HFS seems to exert an increase in excitability (Pascual-Leone et al. 1994) and an LTP-like effect (Wang et al. 1996, 1999), LFS seems to generate a decrease in excitability (R. Chen et al. 1997) and an LTD-like effect (Wang et al. 1996, 1999). Furthermore, the effect on oscillatory activity is different (Brignani et al. 2008; Fuggetta et al. 2008; Paus et al. 2001), as is the effect on neurotransmitter release (Keck et al. 2001, 2002; Yue et al. 2009) (Table 2).
The widespread effect of TMS is beyond the area of stimulation (Kimbrell et al. 2002). This is mediated by transmission of the stimulus via structural connectivity (Momi et al. 2020) thereby influencing functional and effective connectivity (Shen et al. 2015). It has indeed been shown that low and high frequency stimulation exert a different effect on functional connectivity. Furthermore, TMS changes directional functional connectivity, in other words effective connectivity (Grefkes et al. 2010). By altering the functional and effective connectivity TMS can change the emergent property of the stimulated network and thereby exert its clinical effect.
3.2.2.1 The Regimen, Parameter, and Efficacy of TMS
rTMS has been used in tinnitus research in two different ways: single and repeated sessions.
3.2.2.2 Single Sessions
Single sessions of rTMS have been used for three reasons: (1) Pathophysiology and anatomy – to evaluate whether cortical areas that are identified on functional imaging are pathophysiologically involved in the generation of tinnitus, or just spurious associations. The assumption is that if rTMS can induce transient reductions in tinnitus perception by targeting the brain areas that are associated with tinnitus, these areas are causally involved in the tinnitus generation. As such the temporal cortex (De Ridder et al. 2005; Eichhammer et al. 2003a; Plewnia et al. 2003), the frontal cortex (De Ridder et al. 2012; Vanneste and De Ridder 2012a), the parietal cortex (Vanneste et al. 2012), and the anterior cingulate cortex (Vanneste and De Ridder 2012b) have been shown to be implicated in the generation of tinnitus. (2) To verify if TMS could be a prognostic test to select proper candidates for more invasive permanent solutions such as cortical brain implants (De Ridder et al. 2004, 2006a, 2011c, 2016a). (3) To delineate optimal stimulation parameters (De Ridder et al. 2005; Schoisswohl et al. 2019; Kreuzer et al. 2017) that can be employed for multiple rTMS sessions as a possible treatment.
3.2.2.3 Repeated Sessions
Repeated sessions of low frequency rTMS of the temporal (auditory) cortex have been proposed as a novel treatment approach for tinnitus based on the assumption that tinnitus is related to increased neuronal activity in the auditory cortex (Eichhammer et al. 2003b). A large number of studies have looked at low frequency TMS for treatment of tinnitus, with inconclusive results (Schoisswohl et al. 2019), likely due to the high variability and the fact that women respond better than men to rTMS, as shown in a meta-analysis (Lefebvre-Demers et al. 2020). Whereas most meta-analyses do show an improvement for tinnitus associated suffering (J. J. Chen et al. 2020; Lefebvre-Demers et al. 2020; Liang et al. 2020; Soleimani et al. 2016), other meta-analyses do not (Dong et al. 2020). Comprehensive analyses of the literature therefore identify a possible therapeutic efficacy in terms of reduction of tinnitus suffering, but the effect at clinical level is usually partial and temporary (Lefaucheur et al. 2020), with a THI improvement of about 7–8 points (Liang et al. 2020), which is the minimum for clinical efficacy (Zeman et al. 2011), lasting up to 6 months (Liang et al. 2020). Before the publication of the recent meta-analyses already a level C recommendation (possible efficacy) using evidence-based guidelines was proposed (Lefaucheur et al. 2014), stating that low frequency (1 Hz) rTMS of the left temporoparietal cortex in tinnitus is possibly efficacious for tinnitus (Lefaucheur et al. 2014). A more recent follow-up study confirmed these results (Londero et al. 2018)
Apart from the variability in study design, and the fact that women respond better than men, also different stimulation parameters are being used. A recent systematic analysis of the relationship between stimulation parameters and treatment outcome revealed a higher success rate for lower stimulation intensities (Schoisswohl et al. 2019), confirming the evidence based guidelines (Lefaucheur et al. 2014).
More recently, in an attempt to reduce the individual variability, a personalized approach has been investigated, taking into account the heterogeneity of tinnitus generators in the brain, by performing a stimulation protocol tailored to the individual patient. In a pilot study this concept was explored, by delivering rTMS at various frequencies over the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal (DLPFC) or temporoparietal (TPC) cortex in a preliminary test session to select the type of protocol subsequently applied for several days (Kreuzer et al. 2017). The personalized protocol yielded a larger benefit than the standard protocol (20 Hz-rTMS over left DLPFC followed by 1 Hz-rTMS over the left TPC). This suggests that a "tailored" rTMS protocol may be clinically more beneficial.
In summary, rTMS likely provides benefit in the treatment of tinnitus. However, if rTMS is to become routine clinical practice, it is essential to look for mechanisms that may boost or potentiate the therapeutic effect. One such way is to enhance the efficacy of rTMS pharmacologically, e.g. by adding psychostimulants or ketamine. It has been shown that psychostimulants improve the benefit of rTMS for depression (Hunter et al. 2019). Another approach could be to test ketamine enhanced rTMS, which in a preliminary trial in the treatment of depression, a frequent co-morbidity in tinnitus, shows it is feasible and exerts long-term (2 years) beneficial effect (Best et al. 2019).
Thus, rTMS may benefit especially those patients who severely suffer from the tinnitus, expressing anxiety or depression.
Reports of side effects were rare. In a meta-analysis of rTMS for tinnitus, side effects consisted of headache, discomfort at the area of stimulation, muscle twitching, neck contractions and worsening of tinnitus (Dong et al. 2020). No seizures were reported. This could be related to the fact that TMS delivered within published guidelines in individuals without risk factors results in fewer than 1 seizure per 60,000 sessions (Lerner et al. 2019).
3.2.2.4 tES for Treating Tinnitus
Three different versions exist of tES, depending on how the current is delivered to the brain (Fig. 3): transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), which is a special version of tACS (Paulus 2011; Vanneste et al. 2013a).
3.2.3 Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
3.2.3.1 Conventional tDCS
Medical use of direct electric current to the scalp has a long history. In 43–48 A.D., Scribonius Largus (the physician of Roman Emperor Claudius) reported the treatment of pain by placing a live torpedo fish – delivering a strong direct current – over the scalp (Fodstad and Hariz 2007). In the eleventh century, Ibn-Sidah suggested the placement of a live electrical catfish on the frontal bone for the treatment of patients suffering from epilepsy (Kelloway 1946). In the eighteenth century, with the introduction of the electrical battery by Galvani (Galvani 1791, 1797), it was recognized that electrical stimuli of varying duration can evoke different physiological effects (Zago et al. 2008). In honor of Galvani, direct current stimulation is often called Galvanic stimulation. One of the first clinical applications of galvanic currents was in the nineteenth century when Aldini (Aldini 1804) (Galvani’s nephew) and other researchers (Arndt 1869) used transcranial electrical simulation to treat melancholia and depression. In the 1960s and 1970s, this method had a brief comeback (Lippold and Redfearn 1964; Redfearn et al. 1964), with a more sustained revival at the turn of the millennium (Guleyupoglu et al. 2013).
Conventional tDCS uses one anode electrode and one cathode electrode on the scalp to modulate a particular brain area by inducing a controlled electrical current which flows from the anode to the cathode. Due to the high electrical resistance of the skull (Barker et al. 1985), only 25 (to 50%) of the transcranially applied direct current reaches the brain, the rest being shunted through the extracranial soft tissues, as demonstrated by calculations on realistic head models, validated both in animal (Rush and Driscoll 1968; Voroslakos et al. 2018) and human (Dymond et al. 1975; Voroslakos et al. 2018) experiments.
tDCS modulates the cellular membrane potential facilitating or inhibiting spontaneous neuronal activity (Moreno-Duarte et al. 2014; M. A. Nitsche et al. 2008). Anodal stimulation will produce inward current flow, resulting in depolarization of pyramidal cortical neurons and apical dendrite hyperpolarization, while cathodal stimulation will typically produce outward current flow resulting in somatic hyperpolarization of pyramidal cortical neurons and apical dendrite depolarization (Radman et al. 2009; Zaghi et al. 2010a). The depolarization under the anode will result in an increase of firing and excitability under the anode, whereas the firing rate and excitability are decreased under the cathode (Bindman et al. 1964; M. A. Nitsche and Paulus 2001).
However, tDCS often results in a delayed clinical effect (Fujiyama et al. 2014; Stramaccia et al. 2015), which cannot be explained by the immediate effect of tDCS on pyramidal or interneuron cell firing. Therefore, two other mechanisms have been proposed to be involved in tDCS: glial and stem cell modulation. One type of glial cells, astrocytes are possibly modulated by tDCS (Monai and Hirase 2018; Ruohonen and Karhu 2012). Astrocytes control the formation, maturation, function (and elimination) of synapses through various secreted and contact-mediated signals (Clarke and Barres 2013) and can thereby regulate neural circuit development and function (Clarke and Barres 2013). Furthermore, another type of glial cell, microglia, who prune synapses, might also be involved (Mishima et al. 2019). It has indeed been shown that tDCS activates microglia both under anode and cathode (Rueger et al. 2012). Thus, glial cells might be modulated by tDCS resulting in synapse formation and/or elimination, which takes time and can therefore better explain the delayed effects of tDCS.
Furthermore, microglial and astrocytic activation by tDCS may have a neuroimmunomodulatory effect (Goerigk et al. 2021) by altering the expression of immune-mediating genes (Rabenstein et al. 2019).
But apart from modulating neurons, both pyramidal and interneurons and glial cells, both astrocytes and microglia, tDCS could exert its delayed effects via stem cell activation. Indeed, tDCS seems to recruit proliferating neural stem cell under the cathode (Rueger et al. 2012) thereby opening the possibility of regenerative capacities for tDCS and an even more delayed clinical effect of tDCS. The neurogenesis and improved rehabilitation effects of tDCs have been shown in animal models (Zhang et al. 2020).
The effects of tDCS depend on a lot of factors, both patient-related and device-related factors (Table 1). Some factors cannot be controlled, such as the resistance of several cephalic structures including the skin, skull, blood vessels, and brain tissue (Brunoni et al. 2012; Medeiros et al. 2012; Moreno-Duarte et al. 2014; Wagner et al. 2007). Device related factors include (1) polarity of the electrodes, (2) size of the electrodes, (3) the position of the electrodes, (4) the intensity of stimulation or the amount of current delivered (in mA), and (5) the duration of the stimulation (varies between 20–40 min in most studies) (Brunoni et al. 2012; Moreno-Duarte et al. 2014; Nitsche et al. 2015; Wagner et al. 2007). By varying these tDCS parameters, stimulation protocols can be customized to a certain extent to achieve the desired direction, strength, focality, and duration of effects on cortical activity and excitability (Brunoni et al. 2012; Nitsche et al. 2015).
In general, no serious adverse events are seen by tDCS application, as evaluated in more than 10,000 subjects investigated in the contemporary tDCS literature (1998–2014) (A. R. Brunoni et al. 2011; Fregni et al. 2015). The safety of tDCS depends on the strength of current, the size of the electrodes, the contact media and the duration of the stimulation (Iyer et al. 2005; Poreisz et al. 2007).
There have been no reports of a serious adverse effect or irreversible injury across over 33,200 sessions and 1,000 subjects with repeated sessions protocols in human trials (≤40 min, ≤4 mA, ≤7.2 C). tDCS has not produced any severe side effects (Bikson et al. 2016). The threshold for adverse events has been investigated in a safety study in rats, where the current density needed to induce brain damage in rats was found to be at least 100-times higher than the current density used in tDCS trials (Liebetanz et al. 2009). The most frequent side effects include a tingling sensation during stimulation, predominantly under the anode (A. R. Brunoni et al. 2011; Poreisz et al. 2007), an itching sensation (A. R. Brunoni et al. 2011; Fertonani et al. 2015; Poreisz et al. 2007) right under the electrodes, headache (A. R. Brunoni et al. 2011; Poreisz et al. 2007), moderate fatigue (Poreisz et al. 2007) and burning sensation (A. R. Brunoni et al. 2011; Fertonani et al. 2015; Poreisz et al. 2007).
tDCS has been shown to modulate not only the areas underlying anodal and cathodal stimulation (Antal et al. 2004; Brunoni et al. 2012; Dieckhofer et al. 2006; Matsunaga et al. 2004; Zaehle et al. 2011), but also functional and effective connectivity (Alon et al. 2011; Chib et al. 2013; Keeser et al. 2011a, b; Meinzer et al. 2012, 2013; Pena-Gomez et al. 2012; Polania et al. 2011, 2012b; Stagg et al. 2013; Vanneste and De Ridder 2011; Weber et al. 2014), thereby possibly changing the emergent property of the symptom-generating network (Luft et al. 2014). These functional and effective connectivity changes permit modulation of areas beyond the effects of tDCS under the stimulation electrodes (Lang et al. 2005).
The effect of tDCS has been investigated on the physiology of the motor cortex (Brunoni et al. 2012), the visual cortex (Antal et al. 2004), the somatosensory cortex (Dieckhofer et al. 2006; Matsunaga et al. 2004), and the auditory cortex (Zaehle et al. 2011).
Single sessions of tDCS, tACS, and tRNS have been used for elucidating the involvement of specific brain networks in tinnitus pathophysiology and repeated sessions have been investigated as a potential therapeutic approach for tinnitus patients. In comparison with the large number of studies performed by rTMS, tES has been investigated less frequently and most of these studies focused on the effects of single sessions of tDCS. The targets for stimulation have been either the auditory cortex, the temporoparietal cortex or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Initial studies demonstrated transient tinnitus reduction for anodal, but not cathodal tDCS over the temporoparietal cortex, but this effect could not be consistently replicated by further studies (Yuan et al. 2018). Thus, the most promising approaches in single session studies over the auditory cortex were left anodal tDCS and bilateral tRNS. Both approaches were tested as a potential treatment in controlled studies, in which repeated sessions were applied, but unfortunately the results were disappointing, as there was no superiority of tDCS over sham stimulation (Lefaucheur et al. 2017) or a control treatment (Kreuzer et al. 2019) respectively.
In addition to the studies focusing on temporal and temporoparietal areas, several studies have targeted the DLPFC, mostly by using a bifrontal electrode montage. A single session of bifrontal anode right/cathode left tDCS reduced tinnitus intensity or distress in about one third of the patients, whereas anode left/cathode right tDCS had no effect (Vanneste et al. 2010). In a further study, the same group investigated whether the efficacy of bifrontal tDCS can be increased, if the electrode polarity is informed by gamma connectivity in EEG measurements (De Ridder and Vanneste 2012), but this was not the case. The bifrontal tDCS protocol with anode right and cathode left was also investigated as therapeutic approach with repeated sessions in uncontrolled pilot studies, which revealed preliminary promising effects (Frank et al. 2012; Shekhawat and Vanneste 2018).
A meta-analysis demonstrates that tDCS can improve tinnitus distress, but not loudness perception in tinnitus patients (Wang et al. 2018a), confirming an earlier meta-analytic study (Song et al. 2012). Yet, another meta-analysis found no benefit (Lefebvre-Demers et al. 2020). In stark contrast, a recent network meta-analysis revealed that from all non-invasive neuromodulatory approaches, cathodal tDCS over the left DLPFC combined with tRNS over the bilateral auditory cortex was associated with the greatest improvement in tinnitus severity and quality of life compared with the controls (J. J. Chen et al. 2020)
tDCS has also been combined with different forms of auditory stimulation (Lee et al. 2017; Shekhawat et al. 2014; Teismann et al. 2014). However tDCS could enhance neither the therapeutic effects of hearing aids on tinnitus complaints (Shekhawat et al. 2014) nor the effects of notched music training, a specific form of individualized auditory stimulation (Teismann et al. 2014).
In summary, tDCS effects on tinnitus are promising but also variable, analogous to what is seen in rTMS. Due to the many influencing factors this is not surprising, and further development of the more promising tDCS approaches is mandatory.
3.2.3.2 High-Definition tDCS
HD-tDCS has been recently introduced to improve the spatial accuracy, by using arrays of smaller “high-definition” electrodes, instead of the two large pad electrodes of conventional tDCS (Datta et al. 2009; Dmochowski et al. 2011; Guleyupoglu et al. 2013; Heimrath et al. 2015; Shekhawat et al. 2015; Villamar et al. 2013) (Fig. 3, right image). For high-definition tDCS, studies using 4 × 1 ring configuration with intensities up to 2 mA for up to 20 min have demonstrated its tolerability in both healthy (Borckardt et al. 2012; Kuo et al. 2013; Nikolin et al. 2015) and patient populations (Donnell et al. 2015; Villamar et al. 2013). No significant differences were found between 2 and 3 mA, suggesting the safety limits can be extended to 3 mA (Reckow et al. 2018). High-definition tDCS has a higher spatial resolution which allows more focal targeting (Borckardt et al. 2012). Furthermore, HD-tDCS permits simultaneous multifocal stimulation, permitting to develop network stimulation (Ruffini et al. 2014).
HD-tDCS has been used in tinnitus, with higher benefit associated with longer stimulation duration and higher stimulation intensities (Shekhawat et al. 2015), but no clinical difference has been noted between the benefit of conventional and HD-tDCS (Jacquemin et al. 2018).
3.2.4 Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS)
The main mechanisms by which tACS influences brain physiology have been attributed to frequency-specific entrainment, i.e. phase alignment of endogenous brain oscillations to externally applied oscillating electric currents (Thut et al. 2011; Witkowski et al. 2015; Zaehle et al. 2010), and modulation of spike-timing dependent plasticity (Polania et al. 2012a; Vossen et al. 2015). It has been shown that alpha-tACS enhances the individual alpha frequency (Zaehle et al. 2010), but the functional effect depends on background activity (Kanai et al. 2008). tACS boosts motor excitability at 140 Hz (Moliadze et al. 2010) and decreases excitability at 15 Hz (Zaghi et al. 2010b). It has been demonstrated that tACS can influence perception (Kanai et al. 2008), memory (Marshall et al. 2006), motor function (Brignani et al. 2013), and higher-order cognition (Santarnecchi et al. 2013).
tACS of the auditory cortex does not seem to improve tinnitus (Vanneste et al. 2013a, b), neither in single nor in multiple sessions (Claes et al. 2014).
3.2.5 Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS)
tRNS is a modification of tACS (see Fig. 3). The tRNS device generates alternating current, which follows a white noise structure, i.e. all frequencies (0.1–640 Hz) have equal power, with a Gaussian amplitude structure. Low frequency tRNS is defined as 0.1–100 Hz random noise stimulation, whereas high frequency tRNS is limited to frequencies between 100 and 640 Hz. tRNS has a higher perception threshold than tDCS (1,200 μA vs 400 μA) (Ambrus et al. 2010).
Importantly, both for tACS and tRNS low and high amplitudes seem to have an opposite effect. Both tACS and HF-tRNS at 0.4 mA are inhibitory but switch to excitatory modulation at 1 mA (Moliadze et al. 2012).
High frequency tRNS seems to increase excitability (Terney et al. 2008), and its mechanisms of action are still unknown. It could theoretically increase excitability by a stochastic resonance effect mediated through repeated subthreshold stimulations (Terney et al. 2008) that prevent homeostasis of the system (Fertonani et al. 2011). Another possible working mechanism is through desynchronization of (pathological) rhythms (Paulus 2011), but none of the abovementioned mechanisms of action have been proven. tRNS modulates perception (Romanska et al. 2015), memory (Mulquiney et al. 2011), learning (Herpich et al. 2015; S. Tyler et al. 2015), and other cognitive functions (Cappelletti et al. 2013) possibly by NMDA-receptor independent but sodium-channel blocker and benzodiazepines sensitive plasticity (Chaieb et al. 2015).
Low and high frequency tRNS have been clinically used for tinnitus, both with beneficial results on loudness perception and distress (Joos et al. 2015; Vanneste et al. 2013a). In a head to head comparison of tDCS, tACS, and tRNS, it was shown that tRNS was the only efficacious transcranial electrical stimulation for tinnitus suppression (Vanneste et al. 2013a). Interestingly, both low and high frequency tRNS were beneficial but the combined low + high frequency tRNS was inefficacious for tinnitus suppression (Joos et al. 2015). In a further pilot study tACS and tRNS, respectively, were applied bilaterally over the temporal cortices. This study revealed transient suppression of tinnitus for tRNS, but not for tACS. Furthermore, repeated sessions were more beneficial than single sessions (Claes et al. 2014). Yet, when performing daily sessions of HF-tRNS, in contrast to the more traditional 2–3 weekly sessions, no benefit was obtained (Kreuzer et al. 2019), suggesting that too much stimulation may be counterproductive. Adding bifrontal DLPFC tDCS to auditory cortex tRNS was superior to only auditory cortex tRNS (To et al. 2017). And this multisite tRNS approach has indeed shown promise by confirmatory studies (Mohsen et al. 2018, 2019).
3.2.6 Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) and Transcutaneous Vagal Nerve Stimulation (tVNS)
The combination of auditory stimulation with vagal stimulation via implanted electrodes has demonstrated highly impressive results in an animal model of tinnitus (Engineer et al. 2011). Based on the rationale that vagal stimulation renders the simultaneously presented sounds more salient, the combined treatment almost completely reversed neurophysiological and behavioral signs of tinnitus, which was not the case with auditory stimulation alone. In subsequent human pilot studies the efficacy of the invasive VNS + auditory stimulation treatment was confirmed (De Ridder et al. 2014b, 2015a; R. Tyler et al. 2017) albeit the effects were clearly less pronounced than in animals. Furthermore, a study in which VNS stimulation was performed via implanted electrodes to treat epilepsy found equally good tinnitus attenuating results (Wichova et al. 2018). But since these patients did not receive the paired auditory stimulation, the relevance of the paired auditory stimulation is yet unclear.
In these abovementioned studies, vagus nerve stimulation has been performed by the implantation of a neurostimulation device connected to an electrode located along the cervical branch of the vagus nerve. However, recently a non-invasive approach for stimulating the vagus nerve has been developed. This so-called transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) takes advantage of the fact that the vagus nerve has an afferent branch that is located medially to the tragus at the entry of the acoustic meatus and that innervates the external ear canal. For reliable stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagal nerve specific devices have been developed that provide electrical stimulation. Analogous to invasive VNS, stimulation of the vagus with tVNS is typically performed on the left side to minimize potential effects on cardiac rhythm (Kreuzer et al. 2012). In a pilot study the feasibility and safety of 6 months of tVNS were investigated in patients with tinnitus. The stimulation was well tolerated, but did not lead to a relevant improvement of tinnitus complaints (Kreuzer et al. 2014). However, there was a trend towards a reduction of depressive symptoms in treated patients (Kreuzer et al. 2014). Further support for a tVNS induced stress attenuation comes from another study (Ylikoski et al. 2017). In this study the effect of tVNS on heart rate activity was investigated in 173 tinnitus patients and it was found that tVNS can attenuate the sympathetic activation of tinnitus patients
In two small pilot studies tVNS was combined with auditory stimulation, and these studies showed promising effects on tinnitus (Lehtimaki et al. 2012; Shim et al. 2015). These findings are in line with the animal data (Engineer et al. 2011), where the pairing of vagus nerve stimulation with tones excluding the tinnitus frequency was critical for the reduction of tinnitus, whereas vagal nerve stimulation alone had no effect on tinnitus related behavior.
But tVNS has also been performed without auditory pairing, also demonstrating some benefit (Suk et al. 2018), again questioning the relevance of the paired sound presentation.
3.2.7 Bimodal (Auditory and Sensory) Stimulation
Central auditory circuits are influenced by the somatosensory system, a relationship that may underlie tinnitus generation (Basura et al. 2015; Dehmel et al. 2008; Dehmel et al. 2012; Shore 2005; Shore et al. 2008; Stefanescu et al. 2015).
Bi- or multimodal stimulation is presumably more effective for the induction of neuroplastic effects than unimodal stimulation, as synchronicity of events is an important criterion for the induction of neuroplastic effects. This was first expressed by Donald Hebb many decades ago: “Neurons that fire together, wire together” (Hebb 1949). Unimodal stimulation can induce activity-dependent neuroplastic changes such as long-term potentiation or long-term depression, whereas bimodal stimulation provides the additional opportunity to induce alterations of neuronal activity by the mechanisms of spike-timing dependent plasticity (Basura et al. 2015). However, the experimental investigation of bimodal stimulation is more challenging, because of the much larger parameter space.
In recent years different approaches of bi- or multimodal stimulation have been proposed for the treatment of tinnitus. Apart from the combination of vagal stimulation, tDCS and rTMS with auditory stimulation, the combination of auditory stimulation and somatosensory stimulation has been investigated. The somatosensory stimulation was either performed via the trigeminal nerve or via C2 afferents. The combined auditory and somatosensory modulation is motivated by an increasing understanding of the relevance of the somatosensory system for tinnitus pathophysiology (Shore et al. 2016). The clinical phenomenon, that many patients can modulate their tinnitus by face or neck movements, can be explained by the interaction between somatosensory and auditory afferents on the level of the dorsal cochlear nucleus (Levine 1999). This knowledge in turn motivated two different approaches of combined somatosensory and auditory stimulation.
One approach aims at the modulation of activity in the central auditory pathway by exerting an inhibitory effect on the level of the dorsal cochlear nucleus. The somatosensory and auditory stimuli were presented at specific intervals, derived from basic neurophysiological studies in animals describing stimulus timing dependent plasticity in the dorsal cochlear nucleus (Marks et al. 2018). These findings were translated into a clinical pilot trial with 20 patients, in which the combination of sounds with transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the C2 nerve at the level of the neck was applied over 28 days. The bimodal treatment reduced tinnitus loudness and intrusiveness, whereas the control condition (auditory stimulation alone) did not deliver benefit (Marks et al. 2018). Yet, the effect was short-lasting, especially for loudness perception, which did not outlast the 3-week bimodal stimulation period, and the distress improvement only lasted for 3 weeks.
In another approach, sounds are simultaneously applied in combination with electrical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve at the level of the tongue (Conlon et al. 2019; D’Arcy et al. 2017). This approach is based on the idea that tinnitus is caused by auditory deafferentation and that bimodal stimulation might compensate the auditory deafferentation by providing stimuli over the somatosensory system. The combined application of sounds and electrical stimulation of the tongue, for a period of 3 months, was investigated in two large trials (with more than 500 patients) (Conlon et al. 2020). Similar to other studies the bimodal stimulation resulted in a clinical benefit for tinnitus distress, but data for loudness improvement were not provided. In contrast to the C2-auditory bimodal stimulation study, long-lasting results (1 year) were obtained (Conlon et al. 2020).
3.2.8 Invasive Brain Stimulation for Tinnitus
3.2.8.1 Auditory Cortex Stimulation
The procedure is based on a pathophysiological model that the auditory cortex is involved in a pathologically functioning neuronal network that generates tinnitus and that interference with this network activity by auditory cortex stimulation can alleviate tinnitus and follows a four-step rationale (De Ridder et al. 2012b):
-
1.
Tinnitus is related to increased activity in the auditory and frontal cortex.
-
2.
The anatomical location of the tinnitus generator can be determined by fMRI (De Ridder et al. 2011b).
-
3.
The abnormal neuronal activity can be modulated by neuronavigated TMS resulting in transient tinnitus reduction (De Ridder et al. 2004).
-
4.
If TMS can transiently suppress the tinnitus, electrical stimulation through an electrode implanted on the same area can provide permanent tinnitus suppression (De Ridder et al. 2004, 2006a, 2007a, 2011c).
Multiple small and one larger series of patients with auditory cortex electrodes have been published. A series of 43 patients with severe treatment resistant tinnitus (grade 3 and 4 tinnitus according to the tinnitus questionnaire (Goebel and Hiller 1994)) were implanted with a cortical electrode overlying the secondary auditory cortex (De Ridder et al. 2011c). Surgical eligibility was based on 2 positive TMS sessions. Although all patients reacted to TMS, 1 out of 3 patients did not respond to the cortical stimulation with tonic stimuli after implantation. Among the responders to cortical stimulation there was an average decrease in the perceived tinnitus loudness of 51.3%. There was a significant but weak positive correlation (r = 0.34, p < 0.05) between the amount of the suppression effect from the test TMS and cortical stimulation after implantation, even though TMS could not predict who would and who would not respond to the implant (De Ridder et al. 2011c). This may be due to the fact that the mechanism of action of TMS and implanted electrodes is different.
When switching tonic stimulation to burst stimulation (De Ridder et al. 2010) half of the non-responding patients demonstrated change, thereby improving the total response rate from 1 in 3 to 2 out of 3 patients. Burst stimulation was specifically superior to tonic stimulation for suppressing noise-like tinnitus (De Ridder et al. 2011c), analogous to what has been described for TMS (De Ridder et al. 2007c). In contrast to TMS, where the suppression effect decreases with longer tinnitus duration, no correlation was found between the effect of electrical cortical stimulation and tinnitus duration for the same study population, again suggesting that electrical cortical stimulation acts on tinnitus by a different mechanism than TMS.
Treatment effects also depended on tinnitus type. Pure tone tinnitus could be improved more than narrow band noise or the combination of pure tone and narrow band noise, and unilateral tinnitus better than bilateral tinnitus. This surgical neuromodulatory approach of the auditory cortex has been repeated by other centers. A French case study obtained persisting 65% tinnitus reduction in a women using an fMRI based extradural auditory cortex implant (Litre et al. 2009, 2010). Another study of eight patients using a similar technique but different hardware found no permanent tinnitus suppression (Friedland et al. 2007). Temporary effects on tinnitus perception were observed in six out of the eight patients. However, tinnitus distress decreased slowly over time, even without suppression of tinnitus intensity. An electrode with only two contacts was used which limits the way the electrodes can be programmed.
In four patients an intradural electrode on the primary auditory cortex was inserted in the Sylvian fissure, stimulating gray matter of the primary auditory cortex (De Ridder et al. 2004, 2006a). In two patients the purpose was to obtain stabilization of tinnitus suppression, because the stimulus parameters had to be reprogrammed every 2–3 days. In both patients the intradural positioning resulted in a stabilized suppression of their tinnitus.
Another approach has been proposed, inserting a wire electrode in the white matter beneath layer 6 of the primary auditory cortex. This has been performed successfully, using magnetic source imaging for target localization, resulting in tinnitus suppression (Seidman et al. 2008). Interestingly, in patients with tinnitus, intracortical stimulation does not generate a sound percept associated with the delivered current. This is in contrast to patients with epilepsy, in whom intracortical electrical stimulation within Heschl’s gyrus does generate sound percepts, the loudness of which correlates with the delivered amplitude (Donovan et al. 2015).
From a mechanistic point of view it was shown that the success of the auditory cortex implant critically depended on activity in the parahippocampal area, which is related to auditory memory (De Ridder et al. 2006b). Responders to the implant were characterized by high beta3 and gamma band activity in the parahippocampal area, even though the electrodes were overlying the auditory cortex. Only those patients who had functional connections between the area of the implant, i.e. the auditory cortex and the parahippocampal area, benefited from the auditory cortex implant (De Ridder and Vanneste 2014).
Multisite stimulation may benefit tinnitus perception, analogous to what is noted in non-invasive neuromodulation. In a partial responder to auditory cortex implantation, complete resolution of the pure tone component of his tinnitus was obtained, without any beneficial effect on the noise-like component of the tinnitus, even after switching to burst stimulation (De Ridder and Vanneste 2015). After an initial successful treatment of his noise-like component with transcutaneus electrical nerve stimulation, a wire electrode was inserted subcutaneously and connected to his internal pulse generator. With the dual stimulation his pure tone tinnitus remains abolished after 5 years of stimulation and his noise-like tinnitus is improved by 50%, from 8/10 to 4/10. This case report suggested that multitarget stimulation might be better than single target implantation (De Ridder and Vanneste 2015).
In some case reports implants were also performed on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (De Ridder et al. 2012b), anterior cingulate cortex (De Ridder et al. 2016a) and parahippocampal area (De Ridder et al. 2012b) following the same 4-step approach described above. In the two anterior cingulate implants one patient responded whereas another patient did not benefit from the electrode insertion. The responder also had increased functional connectivity to a tinnitus distress network in contrast to the non-responder (De Ridder et al. 2016a). This suggests that analogous to non-invasive stimulation, brain stimulation via implanted electrodes requires functional connectivity to carry the delivered stimulus throughout the symptom generating network (Fox et al. 2014).
3.2.8.2 Deep Brain Stimulation
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been performed as well, in an attempt to treat tinnitus. This was based on a case report of a woman who became tinnitus-free after a stroke in the locus coeruleus (LC) area of the caudate nucleus while undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease (Larson and Cheung 2013). Initially, tinnitus was evaluated in patients in whom DBS was performed to alleviate movement disorders. In a first study, tinnitus loudness reductions were found in 4/7 patients, of which most clearly by ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) stimulation for tremor [256]. In another observational study in six patients with comorbid tinnitus, the concomitant effect on tinnitus perception was evaluated: In five participants where the DBS lead tip traversed area LC, tinnitus loudness in both ears was suppressed to a nadir of level 2 or lower on a 0–10 rating scale. In one subject where the DBS lead was outside area LC, tinnitus was not modulated (Cheung and Larson 2010; Larson and Cheung 2011).
A large multicenter study evaluated the clinical impact of DBS on tinnitus in patients undergoing DBS for movement disorders: the THI tinnitus questionnaire improved only after subthalamic nucleus stimulation [254], suggesting this target may be selected to treat tinnitus related distress. After encouraging results from these observational studies, a phase I study was performed targeting the caudate nucleus as goal to treat severe intractable tinnitus. Tinnitus distress measures improved for three of five patients and one patient had a profound loudness suppression (7.8 points improvement on NRS). This suggests that the caudate nucleus may be a target worthwhile of further exploration, using different stimulation designs and different electrode configurations. Even though the target space may be narrowed down, the stimulation parameter space for optimal improvement is still large.
4 Conclusion
In the last decades, neuroscientific research has contributed to an increasingly better understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms that underlie the generation and maintenance of tinnitus. Based on this knowledge, a large variety of different neuromodulatory interventions have been developed.
Most studies for rTMS have targeted the temporal, temporoparietal, and the frontal cortex. Recent meta-analyses have shown that rTMS may be beneficial for tinnitus, improving the suffering, but not the loudness perception. The recent rTMS European guideline (Lefaucheur et al. 2020) recommended that repeated sessions of low frequency-rTMS of the temporoparietal cortex of the left hemisphere or contralateral to the affected ear have a possible effect in tinnitus. Many questions remain concerning the use of this technique in everyday practice, such as what could be the optimal treatment target(s) protocol and what could be the role of individual susceptibility to auditory cortex stimulation.
Different forms of transcranial electrical stimulation (tDCS, tACS, tRNS), applied over the frontal and temporal cortex, have been investigated in tinnitus patients. Recent meta-analysis suggests that also tES may be beneficial in chronic tinnitus, and that especially the combination of bifrontal tDCS and auditory cortex tRNS may attenuate tinnitus. Cortex and deep brain stimulation with implanted electrodes have shown benefit but there is insufficient data to support their routine clinical use.
Two decades of research in non-invasive neuromodulatory interventions in tinnitus have yet to result in regular clinical routine use. The most recent meta-analyses do suggest that a transition from experimental to clinical applications of non-invasive stimulation may be in view. Furthermore, research has revealed important insights in the pathophysiology of tinnitus, in particular in the relevance of non-auditory brain areas as well in the heterogeneous nature of tinnitus. Recently, bimodal stimulation approaches have also revealed promising results and it appears that targeting different sensory modalities in temporally combined manners may also be a promising avenue.
References
Achard S, Salvador R, Whitcher B, Suckling J, Bullmore E (2006) A resilient, low-frequency, small-world human brain functional network with highly connected association cortical hubs. J Neurosci 26(1):63–72. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3874-05.2006
Adamchic I, Hauptmann C, Tass PA (2012) Changes of oscillatory activity in pitch processing network and related tinnitus relief induced by acoustic CR neuromodulation. Front Syst Neurosci 6:18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2012.00018
Adamchic I, Toth T, Hauptmann C, Tass PA (2014) Reversing pathologically increased EEG power by acoustic coordinated reset neuromodulation. Hum Brain Mapp 35(5):2099–2118. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22314
Adjamian P, Sereda M, Zobay O, Hall DA, Palmer AR (2012) Neuromagnetic indicators of tinnitus and tinnitus masking in patients with and without hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13(5):715–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0340-5
Akeju O, Loggia ML, Catana C, Pavone KJ, Vazquez R, Rhee J et al (2014) Disruption of thalamic functional connectivity is a neural correlate of dexmedetomidine-induced unconsciousness. Elife 3:e04499. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04499
Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi AL (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406(6794):378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/35019019
Aldini G (1804) Essai theoretique et experimental sur le galvanisme. Paris
Almaraz AC, Dilli E, Dodick DW (2010) The effect of prophylactic medications on TMS for migraine aura. Headache 50(10):1630–1633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01787.x
Alon G, Roys SR, Gullapalli RP, Greenspan JD (2011) Non-invasive electrical stimulation of the brain (ESB) modifies the resting-state network connectivity of the primary motor cortex: a proof of concept fMRI study. Brain Res 1403:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.06.013
Amaral LA, Diaz-Guilera A, Moreira AA, Goldberger AL, Lipsitz LA (2004) Emergence of complex dynamics in a simple model of signaling networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(44):15551–15555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404843101
Ambrus GG, Paulus W, Antal A (2010) Cutaneous perception thresholds of electrical stimulation methods: comparison of tDCS and tRNS. Clin Neurophysiol 121(11):1908–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.020
Antal A, Kincses TZ, Nitsche MA, Bartfai O, Paulus W (2004) Excitability changes induced in the human primary visual cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: direct electrophysiological evidence. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(2):702–707. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14744917
Arndt R (1869) Die electricitat in der psychiatrie. Arch Psychiat Nervenkrankh 2:259–261
Axelsson A, Ringdahl A (1989) Tinnitus – a study of its prevalence and characteristics. Br J Audiol 23(1):53–62. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=2784987
Barabasi AL, Gulbahce N, Loscalzo J (2011) Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease. Nat Rev Genet 12(1):56–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2918
Barker AT (1999) The history and basic principles of magnetic nerve stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 51:3–21. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10590931
Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985) Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 1(8437):1106–1107
Bassett DS, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Achard S, Duke T, Bullmore E (2006) Adaptive reconfiguration of fractal small-world human brain functional networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(51):19518–19523. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606005103
Basura GJ, Koehler SD, Shore SE (2015) Bimodal stimulus timing-dependent plasticity in primary auditory cortex is altered after noise exposure with and without tinnitus. J Neurophysiol 114(6):3064–3075. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00319.2015
Best SRD, Pavel DG, Haustrup N (2019) Combination therapy with transcranial magnetic stimulation and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression: A long-term retrospective review of clinical use. Heliyon 5(8):e02187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02187
Bhatt JM, Bhattacharyya N, Lin HW (2017) Relationships between tinnitus and the prevalence of anxiety and depression. Laryngoscope 127(2):466–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26107
Bikson M, Grossman P, Thomas C, Zannou AL, Jiang J, Adnan T et al (2016) Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul 9(5):641–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.004
Bindman LJ, Lippold OC, Redfearn JW (1964) The action of brief polarizing currents on the cerebral cortex of the rat (1) during current flow and (2) in the production of long-lasting after-effects. J Physiol 172:369–382. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14199369
Boccard SG, Fitzgerald JJ, Pereira EA, Moir L, Van Hartevelt TJ, Kringelbach ML et al (2014) Targeting the affective component of chronic pain: a case series of deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000321
Boly M, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, Lambermont B, Damas F, Luxen A et al (2005) Cerebral processing of auditory and noxious stimuli in severely brain injured patients: differences between VS and MCS. Neuropsychol Rehabil 15(3–4):283–289. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16350972
Borckardt JJ, Bikson M, Frohman H, Reeves ST, Datta A, Bansal V et al (2012) A pilot study of the tolerability and effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) on pain perception. J Pain 13(2):112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2011.07.001
Borst A, Theunissen FE (1999) Information theory and neural coding. Nat Neurosci 2(11):947–957. https://doi.org/10.1038/14731
Brignani D, Manganotti P, Rossini PM, Miniussi C (2008) Modulation of cortical oscillatory activity during transcranial magnetic stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 29(5):603–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20423
Brignani D, Ruzzoli M, Mauri P, Miniussi C (2013) Is transcranial alternating current stimulation effective in modulating brain oscillations? PLoS One 8(2):e56589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056589
Brunoni AR, Amadera J, Berbel B, Volz MS, Rizzerio BG, Fregni F (2011) A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 14(8):1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1461145710001690
Brunoni AR, Nitsche MA, Bolognini N, Bikson M, Wagner T, Merabet L, Edwards DJ, Valero-Cabre A, Rotenberg A, Pascual-Leone A, Ferricci R, Priori A, Boggio PS, Fregni F (2012) Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): challenges and future directions. Brain Stimul 5:175–195
Bullmore E, Sporns O (2009) Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 10(3):186–198. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2575
Bullmore E, Sporns O (2012) The economy of brain network organization. Nat Rev Neurosci 13(5):336–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3214
Buzsaki G (2006) Rhythms of the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Buzsaki G, Mizuseki K (2014) The log-dynamic brain: how skewed distributions affect network operations. Nat Rev Neurosci 15(4):264–278. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3687
Cappelletti M, Gessaroli E, Hithersay R, Mitolo M, Didino D, Kanai R et al (2013) Transfer of cognitive training across magnitude dimensions achieved with concurrent brain stimulation of the parietal lobe. J Neurosci 33(37):14899–14907. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1692-13.2013
Carmi L, Tendler A, Bystritsky A, Hollander E, Blumberger DM, Daskalakis J et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a prospective multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry., appiajp201918101180. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18101180
Catania KC (2009) Tentacled snakes turn C-starts to their advantage and predict future prey behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(27):11183–11187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905183106
Chaieb L, Antal A, Paulus W (2015) Transcranial random noise stimulation-induced plasticity is NMDA-receptor independent but sodium-channel blocker and benzodiazepines sensitive. Front Neurosci 9:125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00125
Cheeran B, Talelli P, Mori F, Koch G, Suppa A, Edwards M et al (2008) A common polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity and the response to rTMS. J Physiol 586(Pt 23):5717–5725. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2008.159905
Chen R, Classen J, Gerloff C, Celnik P, Wassermann EM, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1997) Depression of motor cortex excitability by low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 48(5):1398–1403. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=9153480
Chen JJ, Zeng BS, Wu CN, Stubbs B, Carvalho AF, Brunoni AR et al (2020) Association of central noninvasive brain stimulation interventions with efficacy and safety in tinnitus management: a meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2020.1497
Cheung SW, Larson PS (2010) Tinnitus modulation by deep brain stimulation in locus of caudate neurons (area LC). Neuroscience 169(4):1768–1778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.06.007
Chib VS, Yun K, Takahashi H, Shimojo S (2013) Noninvasive remote activation of the ventral midbrain by transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex. Transl Psychiatry 3:e268. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2013.44
Claes L, Stamberger H, Van de Heyning P, De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2014) Auditory cortex tACS and tRNS for tinnitus: single versus multiple sessions. Neural Plast 2014:436713. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/436713
Clarke LE, Barres BA (2013) Emerging roles of astrocytes in neural circuit development. Nat Rev Neurosci 14(5):311–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3484
Conlon B, Hamilton C, Hughes S, Meade E, Hall DA, Vanneste S et al (2019) Noninvasive bimodal neuromodulation for the treatment of tinnitus: protocol for a second large-scale double-blind randomized clinical trial to optimize stimulation parameters. JMIR Res Protoc 8(9):e13176. https://doi.org/10.2196/13176
Conlon B, Langguth B, Hamilton C, Hughes S, Meade E, Connor CO et al (2020) Bimodal neuromodulation combining sound and tongue stimulation reduces tinnitus symptoms in a large randomized clinical study. Sci Transl Med 12(564). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abb2830
Crick F, Koch C (1995) Are we aware of neural activity in primary visual cortex? Nature 375(6527):121–123. https://doi.org/10.1038/375121a0
Crunelli V, Lorincz ML, Connelly WM, David F, Hughes SW, Lambert RC et al (2018) Dual function of thalamic low-vigilance state oscillations: rhythm-regulation and plasticity. Nat Rev Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.151
D'Arcy S, Hamilton C, Hughes S, Hall DA, Vanneste S, Langguth B, Conlon B (2017) Bi-modal stimulation in the treatment of tinnitus: a study protocol for an exploratory trial to optimise stimulation parameters and patient subtyping. BMJ Open 7(10):e018465. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018465
Datta A, Bansal V, Diaz J, Patel J, Reato D, Bikson M (2009) Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimul 2(4):201–207., 207.e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.005
Day BL, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Dick JP, Cowan JM, Berardelli A, Marsden CD (1987) Motor cortex stimulation in intact man. 2. Multiple descending volleys. Brain 110(Pt 5):1191–1209. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3676698
De Ridder D (2010) Should rTMS for tinnitus be performed left-sided, ipsilaterally or contralaterally, and is it a treatment or merely investigational? Eur J Neurol 17(7):891–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02967.x
De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2012) EEG driven tDCS versus bifrontal tDCS for tinnitus. Front Psych 3:84. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00084
De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2014) Targeting the parahippocampal area by auditory cortex stimulation in tinnitus. Brain Stimul. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.04.004
De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2015) Multitarget surgical neuromodulation: combined C2 and auditory cortex implantation for tinnitus. Neurosci Lett 591:202–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2015.02.034
De Ridder D, De Mulder G, Walsh V, Muggleton N, Sunaert S, Moller A (2004) Magnetic and electrical stimulation of the auditory cortex for intractable tinnitus. Case report. J Neurosurg 100(3):560–564. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15035296
De Ridder D, Verstraeten E, Van der Kelen K, De Mulder G, Sunaert S, Verlooy J et al (2005) Transcranial magnetic stimulation for tinnitus: influence of tinnitus duration on stimulation parameter choice and maximal tinnitus suppression. Otol Neurotol 26(4):616–619. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16015156
De Ridder D, De Mulder G, Verstraeten E, Van der Kelen K, Sunaert S, Smits M et al (2006a) Primary and secondary auditory cortex stimulation for intractable tinnitus. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 68(1):48–54. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16514263
De Ridder D, Fransen H, Francois O, Sunaert S, Kovacs S, Van De Heyning P (2006b) Amygdalohippocampal involvement in tinnitus and auditory memory. Acta Otolaryngol (556):50–53. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17114143
De Ridder D, De Mulder G, Menovsky T, Sunaert S, Kovacs S (2007a) Electrical stimulation of auditory and somatosensory cortices for treatment of tinnitus and pain. Prog Brain Res 166:377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)66036-1
De Ridder D, De Mulder G, Verstraeten E, Seidman M, Elisevich K, Sunaert S et al (2007b) Auditory cortex stimulation for tinnitus. Acta Neurochir Suppl 97(Pt 2):451–462. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17691335
De Ridder D, van der Loo E, Van der Kelen K, Menovsky T, van de Heyning P, Moller A (2007c) Do tonic and burst TMS modulate the lemniscal and extralemniscal system differentially? Int J Med Sci 4(5):242–246. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17952200
De Ridder D, van der Loo E, Van der Kelen K, Menovsky T, van de Heyning P, Moller A (2007d) Theta, alpha and beta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation: brain modulation in tinnitus. Int J Med Sci 4(5):237–241. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17952199
De Ridder D, Menovsky T, van de Heyning P (2008) Auditory cortex stimulation for tinnitus suppression. Otol Neurotol 29(4):574–575.; author reply 575. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181719773
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, van der Loo E, Plazier M, Menovsky T, van de Heyning P (2010) Burst stimulation of the auditory cortex: a new form of neurostimulation for noise-like tinnitus suppression. J Neurosurg 112(6):1289–1294. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.10.JNS09298
De Ridder D, Elgoyhen AB, Romo R, Langguth B (2011a) Phantom percepts: tinnitus and pain as persisting aversive memory networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(20):8075–8080. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018466108
De Ridder D, van der Loo E, Vanneste S, Gais S, Plazier M, Kovacs S et al (2011b) Theta-gamma dysrhythmia and auditory phantom perception. J Neurosurg 114(4):912–921. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.11.JNS10335
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Kovacs S, Sunaert S, Menovsky T, van de Heyning P, Moller A (2011c) Transcranial magnetic stimulation and extradural electrodes implanted on secondary auditory cortex for tinnitus suppression. J Neurosurg 114(4):903–911. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.11.JNS10197
De Ridder D, Song JJ, Vanneste S (2012a) Frontal cortex TMS for tinnitus. Brain Stimul 6(3):355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.07.002
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Menovsky T, Langguth B (2012b) Surgical brain modulation for tinnitus: the past, present and future. J Neurosurg Sci 56(4):323–340
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, Menovsky T, van de Heyning P, Kovacs S, Sunaert S (2012c) Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex transcranial magnetic stimulation and electrode implant for intractable tinnitus. World Neurosurg 77(5-6):778–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.009
De Ridder D, Joos K, Vanneste S (2014a) The enigma of the tinnitus-free dream state in a Bayesian world. Neural Plast 2014:612147. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/612147
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Engineer ND, Kilgard MP (2014b) Safety and efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation paired with tones for the treatment of tinnitus: a case series. Neuromodulation 17(2):170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12127
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Freeman W (2014c) The Bayesian brain: phantom percepts resolve sensory uncertainty. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 44C:4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.04.001
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Weisz N, Londero A, Schlee W, Elgoyhen AB, Langguth B (2014d) An integrative model of auditory phantom perception: tinnitus as a unified percept of interacting separable subnetworks. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 44:16–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.03.021
De Ridder D, Kilgard M, Engineer N, Vanneste S (2015a) Placebo-controlled vagus nerve stimulation paired with tones in a patient with refractory tinnitus: a case report. Otol Neurotol 36(4):575–580. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000704
De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Langguth B, Llinas R (2015b) Thalamocortical dysrhythmia: a theoretical update in tinnitus. Front Neurol 6:124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00124
De Ridder D, Joos K, Vanneste S (2016a) Anterior cingulate implants for tinnitus: report of 2 cases. J Neurosurg 124(4):893–901. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.JNS142880
De Ridder D, Manning P, Glue P, Cape G, Langguth B, Vanneste S (2016b) Anterior cingulate implant for alcohol dependence. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001248
De Ridder D, Perera S, Vanneste S (2017) State of the art: novel applications for cortical stimulation. Neuromodulation 20(3):206–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12593
Dehmel S, Cui YL, Shore SE (2008) Cross-modal interactions of auditory and somatic inputs in the brainstem and midbrain and their imbalance in tinnitus and deafness. Am J Audiol 17(2):S193–S209. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2008/07-0045)
Dehmel S, Pradhan S, Koehler S, Bledsoe S, Shore S (2012) Noise overexposure alters long-term somatosensory-auditory processing in the dorsal cochlear nucleus – possible basis for tinnitus-related hyperactivity? J Neurosci 32(5):1660–1671. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4608-11.2012
Demertzi A, Soddu A, Laureys S (2012) Consciousness supporting networks. Curr Opin Neurobiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.003
Deppe M, Abdelnaim M, Hebel T, Kreuzer P, Poeppl T, Langguth B, Schecklmann M (2020) Concomitant lorazepam use and antidepressive efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in a naturalistic setting. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci:1–7
Dieckhofer A, Waberski TD, Nitsche M, Paulus W, Buchner H, Gobbele R (2006) Transcranial direct current stimulation applied over the somatosensory cortex – differential effect on low and high frequency SEPs. Clin Neurophysiol 117(10):2221–2227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.07.136
Dietrich S (2004) Earliest historic reference of 'tinnitus' is controversial. J Laryngol Otol 118(7):487–488. https://doi.org/10.1258/0022215041615182
Dmochowski JP, Datta A, Bikson M, Su Y, Parra LC (2011) Optimized multi-electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target. J Neural Eng 8(4):046011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046011
Dobie RA (1999) A review of randomized clinical trials in tinnitus. Laryngoscope 109(8):1202–1211. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10443820
Dong C, Chen C, Wang T, Gao C, Wang Y, Guan X, Dong X (2020) Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of chronic tinnitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biomed Res Int 2020:3141278. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3141278
Donnell A, Nascimento TD, Lawrence M, Gupta V, Zieba T, Truong DQ et al (2015) High-definition and non-invasive brain modulation of pain and motor dysfunction in chronic TMD. Brain Stimul. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.06.008
Donovan C, Sweet J, Eccher M, Megerian C, Semaan M, Murray G, Miller J (2015) Deep brain stimulation of Heschl gyrus: implantation technique, intraoperative localization, and effects of stimulation. Neurosurgery 77(6):940–947. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000969
Dymond AM, Coger RW, Serafetinides EA (1975) Intracerebral current levels in man during electrosleep therapy. Biol Psychiatry 10(1):101–104. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=1120172
Eguiluz VM, Chialvo DR, Cecchi GA, Baliki M, Apkarian AV (2005) Scale-free brain functional networks. Phys Rev Lett 94(1):018102. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15698136
Eichhammer P, Langguth B, Marienhagen J, Kleinjung T, Hajak G (2003a) Neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with tinnitus: a short case series. Biol Psychiatry 54(8):862–865. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14550687
Eichhammer P, Langguth B, Marienhagen J, Kleinjung T, Hajak G (2003b) Neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with tinnitus: a short case series. Biol Psychiatry 54:862–865
Elgoyhen AB, Langguth B, De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2015) Tinnitus: perspectives from human neuroimaging. Nat Rev Neurosci 16(10):632–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn4003
Engineer ND, Riley JR, Seale JD, Vrana WA, Shetake JA, Sudanagunta SP et al (2011) Reversing pathological neural activity using targeted plasticity. Nature 470(7332):101–104. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09656
Fertonani A, Pirulli C, Miniussi C (2011) Random noise stimulation improves neuroplasticity in perceptual learning. J Neurosci 31(43):15416–15423. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2002-11.2011
Fertonani A, Ferrari C, Miniussi C (2015) What do you feel if I apply transcranial electric stimulation? Safety, sensations and secondary induced effects. Clin Neurophysiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.03.015
Fields H (2004) State-dependent opioid control of pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 5(7):565–575. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1431
Fleming MK, Sorinola IO, Newham DJ, Roberts-Lewis SF, Bergmann JH (2012) The effect of coil type and navigation on the reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 20(5):617–625. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2202692
Fodstad H, Hariz M (2007) Electricity in the treatment of nervous system disease. Acta Neurochir Suppl 97(Pt 1):11–19. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17691352
Fornito A, Bullmore ET (2014) Connectomics: a new paradigm for understanding brain disease. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.02.011
Fornito A, Zalesky A, Breakspear M (2015) The connectomics of brain disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci 16(3):159–172. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3901
Fox MD, Halko MA, Eldaief MC, Pascual-Leone A (2012) Measuring and manipulating brain connectivity with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging (fcMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Neuroimage 62(4):2232–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.035
Fox MD, Buckner RL, Liu H, Chakravarty MM, Lozano AM, Pascual-Leone A (2014) Resting-state networks link invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation across diverse psychiatric and neurological diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(41):E4367–E4375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405003111
Frank E, Schecklmann M, Landgrebe M, Burger J, Kreuzer P, Poeppl TB et al (2011) Treatment of chronic tinnitus with repeated sessions of prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation: outcomes from an open-label pilot study. J Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-011-6189-4
Frank E, Schecklmann M, Landgrebe M, Burger J, Kreuzer P, Poeppl TB et al (2012) Treatment of chronic tinnitus with repeated sessions of prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation: outcomes from an open-label pilot study. J Neurol 259(2):327–333. Retrieved from PM:21808984
Freeman WJ (2003) The wave packet: an action potential for the 21st century. J Integr Neurosci 2(1):3–30. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15011274
Freeman WJ (2005) A field-theoretic approach to understanding scale-free neocortical dynamics. Biol Cybern 92(6):350–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-005-0563-1
Freeman WJ, Rogers LJ (2002) Fine temporal resolution of analytic phase reveals episodic synchronization by state transitions in gamma EEGs. J Neurophysiol 87(2):937–945. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11826058
Freeman WJ, Kozma R, Werbos PJ (2001) Biocomplexity: adaptive behavior in complex stochastic dynamical systems. Biosystems 59(2):109–123. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11267739
Fregni F, Nitsche MA, Loo CK, Brunoni AR, Marangolo P, Leite J et al (2015) Regulatory considerations for the clinical and research use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): review and recommendations from an expert panel. Clin Res Regul Aff 32(1):22–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/10601333.2015.980944
Friedland DR, Gaggl W, Runge-Samuelson C, Ulmer JL, Kopell BH (2007) Feasibility of auditory cortical stimulation for the treatment of tinnitus. Otol Neurotol 28(8):1005–1012. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18043428
Friston KJ (2011) Functional and effective connectivity: a review. Brain Connect 1(1):13–36. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2011.0008
Fuchs E, Flugge G (2014) Adult neuroplasticity: more than 40 years of research. Neural Plast 2014:541870. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/541870
Fuggetta G, Pavone EF, Fiaschi A, Manganotti P (2008) Acute modulation of cortical oscillatory activities during short trains of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex: a combined EEG and TMS study. Hum Brain Mapp 29(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20371
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 6:115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00115
Galvani L (1791) De viribus electricitatis in motu muscolari animalium. Bologna
Galvani L (1797) Memorie sull'elettricita' animale
Goebel G, Hiller W (1994) The tinnitus questionnaire. A standard instrument for grading the degree of tinnitus. Results of a multicenter study with the tinnitus questionnaire. HNO 42(3):166–172. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=8175381
Goerigk S, Cretaz E, Sampaio-Junior B, Vieira ELM, Gattaz W, Klein I et al (2021) Effects of tDCS on neuroplasticity and inflammatory biomarkers in bipolar depression: results from a sham-controlled study. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 105:110119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110119
Goetz SM, Kozyrkov IC, Luber B, Lisanby SH, Murphy DLK, Grill WM, Peterchev AV (2019) Accuracy of robotic coil positioning during transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neural Eng 16(5):054003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab2953
Grefkes C, Nowak DA, Wang LE, Dafotakis M, Eickhoff SB, Fink GR (2010) Modulating cortical connectivity in stroke patients by rTMS assessed with fMRI and dynamic causal modeling. Neuroimage 50(1):233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.029
Gribkoff VK, Kaczmarek LK (2017) The need for new approaches in CNS drug discovery: why drugs have failed, and what can be done to improve outcomes. Neuropharmacology 120:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.03.021
Guleyupoglu B, Schestatsky P, Edwards D, Fregni F, Bikson M (2013) Classification of methods in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) and evolving strategy from historical approaches to contemporary innovations. J Neurosci Methods 219(2):297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.07.016
Hagmann P, Cammoun L, Gigandet X, Meuli R, Honey CJ, Wedeen VJ, Sporns O (2008) Mapping the structural core of human cerebral cortex. PLoS Biol 6(7):e159. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060159
Hayward G, Mehta MA, Harmer C, Spinks TJ, Grasby PM, Goodwin GM (2007) Exploring the physiological effects of double-cone coil TMS over the medial frontal cortex on the anterior cingulate cortex: an H2(15)O PET study. Eur J Neurosci 25(7):2224–2233. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17439499
Hebb D (1949) The organization of behavior; a neuropsychological theory. Wiley-Interscience, New York
Hebel T, Abdelnaim M, Deppe M, Langguth B, Schecklmann M (2020) Attenuation of antidepressive effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients whose medication includes drugs for psychosis. J Psychopharmacol 34(10):1119–1124
Heimrath K, Breitling C, Krauel K, Heinze HJ, Zaehle T (2015) Modulation of pre-attentive spectro-temporal feature processing in the human auditory system by HD-tDCS. Eur J Neurosci 41(12):1580–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12908
Heller AJ (2003) Classification and epidemiology of tinnitus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 36(2):239–248. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12856294
Herpich F, Melnick M, Huxlin K, Tadin D, Agosta S, Battelli L (2015) Transcranial random noise stimulation enhances visual learning in healthy adults. J Vis 15(12):40. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.12.40
Holland J (2014) Complexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hunter AM, Minzenberg MJ, Cook IA, Krantz DE, Levitt JG, Rotstein NM et al (2019) Concomitant medication use and clinical outcome of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment of major depressive disorder. Brain Behav 9(5):e01275. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1275
Iyer MB, Mattu U, Grafman J, Lomarev M, Sato S, Wassermann EM (2005) Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals. Neurology 64(5):872–875. Retrieved from PM:15753425
Jacquemin L, Shekhawat GS, Van de Heyning P, Mertens G, Fransen E, Van Rompaey V et al (2018) Effects of electrical stimulation in tinnitus patients: conventional versus high-definition tDCS. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 32(8):714–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968318787916
Jastreboff PJ (1990) Phantom auditory perception (tinnitus): mechanisms of generation and perception. Neurosci Res 8(4):221–254. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=2175858
Joos K, De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2015) The differential effect of low- versus high-frequency random noise stimulation in the treatment of tinnitus. Exp Brain Res 233(5):1433–1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4217-9
Kanai R, Chaieb L, Antal A, Walsh V, Paulus W (2008) Frequency-dependent electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. Curr Biol 18(23):1839–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.027
Karuza EA, Thompson-Schill SL, Bassett DS (2016) Local patterns to global architectures: influences of network topology on human learning. Trends Cogn Sci 20(8):629–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.003
Keck ME, Welt T, Post A, Muller MB, Toschi N, Wigger A et al (2001) Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in a psychopathological animal model are suggestive of antidepressant-like effects. Neuropsychopharmacology 24(4):337–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(00)00191-3
Keck ME, Welt T, Muller MB, Erhardt A, Ohl F, Toschi N et al (2002) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation increases the release of dopamine in the mesolimbic and mesostriatal system. Neuropharmacology 43(1):101–109. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12213264
Keeser D, Meindl T, Bor J, Palm U, Pogarell O, Mulert C et al (2011a) Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation changes connectivity of resting-state networks during fMRI. J Neurosci 31(43):15284–15293. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0542-11.2011
Keeser D, Padberg F, Reisinger E, Pogarell O, Kirsch V, Palm U et al (2011b) Prefrontal direct current stimulation modulates resting EEG and event-related potentials in healthy subjects: a standardized low resolution tomography (sLORETA) study. Neuroimage 55(2):644–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.004
Kelloway P (1946) The part played by the electrical fish in the early history of bioelectricity and electrotherapy. Bull Hist Med 20:112–137
Keshner MS (1982) 1/f Noise. Proc IEEE 70(3):212–218
Kesselheim AS, Hwang TJ, Franklin JM (2015) Two decades of new drug development for central nervous system disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14(12):815–816. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4793
Kimbrell TA, Little JT, Dunn RT, Frye MA, Greenberg BD, Wassermann EM et al (1999) Frequency dependence of antidepressant response to left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a function of baseline cerebral glucose metabolism. Biol Psychiatry 46(12):1603–1613. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10624541
Kimbrell TA, Dunn RT, George MS, Danielson AL, Willis MW, Repella JD et al (2002) Left prefrontal-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and regional cerebral glucose metabolism in normal volunteers. Psychiatry Res 115(3):101–113. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12208488
Kleinjung T, Steffens T, Sand P, Murthum T, Hajak G, Strutz J et al (2007) Which tinnitus patients benefit from transcranial magnetic stimulation? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137(4):589–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.12.007
Kong J, Loggia ML, Zyloney C, Tu P, Laviolette P, Gollub RL (2010) Exploring the brain in pain: activations, deactivations and their relation. Pain 148(2):257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.11.008
Kreuzer PM, Landgrebe M, Schecklmann M, Poeppl TB, Vielsmeier V, Hajak G et al (2011) Can temporal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation be enhanced by targeting affective components of tinnitus with frontal rTMS? A randomized controlled pilot trial. Front Syst Neurosci 5:88. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2011.00088
Kreuzer PM, Landgrebe M, Husser O, Resch M, Schecklmann M, Geisreiter F et al (2012) Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation: retrospective assessment of cardiac safety in a pilot study. Front Psych 3:70. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00070
Kreuzer PM, Landgrebe M, Resch M, Husser O, Schecklmann M, Geisreiter F et al (2014) Feasibility, safety and efficacy of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation in chronic tinnitus: an open pilot study. Brain Stimul 7(5):740–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.05.003
Kreuzer PM, Poeppl TB, Rupprecht R, Vielsmeier V, Lehner A, Langguth B, Schecklmann M (2017) Individualized repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in chronic tinnitus? Front Neurol 8:126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00126
Kreuzer PM, Poeppl TB, Rupprecht R, Vielsmeier V, Lehner A, Langguth B, Schecklmann M (2019) Daily high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation of bilateral temporal cortex in chronic tinnitus – a pilot study. Sci Rep 9(1):12274. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48686-0
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 x 1 ring tDCS: a neurophysiological study. Brain Stimul 6(4):644–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.09.010
Lang N, Siebner HR, Ward NS, Lee L, Nitsche MA, Paulus W et al (2005) How does transcranial DC stimulation of the primary motor cortex alter regional neuronal activity in the human brain? Eur J Neurosci 22(2):495–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04233.x
Langguth B, Eichhammer P, Kreutzer A, Maenner P, Marienhagen J, Kleinjung T et al (2006) The impact of auditory cortex activity on characterizing and treating patients with chronic tinnitus – first results from a PET study. Acta Otolaryngol (556):84–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03655230600895317
Langguth B, Kreuzer PM, Kleinjung T, De Ridder D (2013) Tinnitus: causes and clinical management. Lancet Neurol 12(9):920–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70160-1
Larson PS, Cheung SW (2011) Deep brain stimulation in area LC controllably triggers auditory phantom percepts. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182320ab5
Larson PS, Cheung SW (2013) A stroke of silence: tinnitus suppression following placement of a deep brain stimulation electrode with infarction in area LC. J Neurosurg 118(1):192–194. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.JNS12594
Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Degueldre C, Fiore GD, Damas P, Lambermont B et al (2000) Auditory processing in the vegetative state. Brain 123(Pt 8):1589–1601. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10908189
Laureys S, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, Damas P, Lambermont B, Del Fiore G et al (2002) Cortical processing of noxious somatosensory stimuli in the persistent vegetative state. Neuroimage 17(2):732–741
Leaver AM, Renier L, Chevillet MA, Morgan S, Kim HJ, Rauschecker JP (2011) Dysregulation of limbic and auditory networks in tinnitus. Neuron 69(1):33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.002
Lee HY, Choi MS, Chang DS, Cho CS (2017) Combined bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation and tailor-made notched music training in chronic tinnitus. J Audiol Otol 21(1):22–27. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2017.21.1.22
Lefaucheur JP, Andre-Obadia N, Antal A, Ayache SS, Baeken C, Benninger DH et al (2014) Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 125(11):2150–2206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2014.05.021
Lefaucheur JP, Antal A, Ayache SS, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Cogiamanian F et al (2017) Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol 128(1):56–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2016.10.087
Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Di Lazzaro V et al (2020) Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): an update (2014-2018). Clin Neurophysiol 131(2):474–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.002
Lefebvre-Demers M, Doyon N, Fecteau S (2020) Non-invasive neuromodulation for tinnitus: a meta-analysis and modeling studies. Brain Stimul 14(1):113–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.11.014
Lehtimaki J, Hyvarinen P, Ylikoski M, Bergholm M, Makela JP, Aarnisalo A et al (2012) Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation in tinnitus: a pilot study. Acta Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2012.750736
Leong SL, Glue P, Manning P, Vanneste S, Lim LJ, Mohan A, De Ridder D (2020) Anterior cingulate cortex implants for alcohol addiction: a feasibility study. Neurotherapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-020-00851-4
Lerner AJ, Wassermann EM, Tamir DI (2019) Seizures from transcranial magnetic stimulation 2012-2016: results of a survey of active laboratories and clinics. Clin Neurophysiol 130(8):1409–1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.03.016
Levine RA (1999) Somatic (craniocervical) tinnitus and the dorsal cochlear nucleus hypothesis. Am J Otolaryngol 20(6):351–362. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10609479
Lewis CM, Baldassarre A, Committeri G, Romani GL, Corbetta M (2009) Learning sculpts the spontaneous activity of the resting human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(41):17558–17563. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902455106
Liang Z, Yang H, Cheng G, Huang L, Zhang T, Jia H (2020) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on chronic tinnitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 20(1):547. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02947-9
Liebetanz D, Koch R, Mayenfels S, Konig F, Paulus W, Nitsche MA (2009) Safety limits of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in rats. Clin Neurophysiol 120(6):1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.01.022
Lippold OC, Redfearn JW (1964) Mental changes resulting from the passage of small direct currents through the human brain. Br J Psychiatry 110:768–772. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14211693
Litre CF, Theret E, Tran H, Leveque M, Portefaix C, Gierski F et al (2009) Surgical treatment by electrical stimulation of the auditory cortex for intractable tinnitus. Brain Stimul 2(3):132–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2008.11.001
Litre CF, Giersky F, Theret E, Leveque M, Peruzzi P, Rousseaux P (2010) Feasibility of auditory cortical stimulation for the treatment of tinnitus. Three case reports. Neurochirurgie 56(4):303–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2010.03.004
Llinas RR, Steriade M (2006) Bursting of thalamic neurons and states of vigilance. J Neurophysiol 95(6):3297–3308. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00166.2006
Llinas RR, Ribary U, Jeanmonod D, Kronberg E, Mitra PP (1999) Thalamocortical dysrhythmia: a neurological and neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by magnetoencephalography. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96(26):15222–15227. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10611366
Llinas R, Urbano FJ, Leznik E, Ramirez RR, van Marle HJ (2005) Rhythmic and dysrhythmic thalamocortical dynamics: GABA systems and the edge effect. Trends Neurosci 28(6):325–333. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15927689
Londero A, Bonfils P, Lefaucheur JP (2018) Transcranial magnetic stimulation and subjective tinnitus. A review of the literature, 2014-2016. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 135(1):51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2017.12.001
Lorenz I, Muller N, Schlee W, Hartmann T, Weisz N (2009) Loss of alpha power is related to increased gamma synchronization-A marker of reduced inhibition in tinnitus? Neurosci Lett 453(3):225–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2009.02.028
Luft CD, Pereda E, Banissy MJ, Bhattacharya J (2014) Best of both worlds: promise of combining brain stimulation and brain connectome. Front Syst Neurosci 8:132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00132
Malaguti A, Rossini D, Lucca A, Magri L, Lorenzi C, Pirovano A et al (2011) Role of COMT, 5-HT(1A) , and SERT genetic polymorphisms on antidepressant response to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Depress Anxiety 28(7):568–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20815
Marks KL, Martel DT, Wu C, Basura GJ, Roberts LE, Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Shore SE (2018) Auditory-somatosensory bimodal stimulation desynchronizes brain circuitry to reduce tinnitus in guinea pigs and humans. Sci Transl Med 10(422). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aal3175
Marshall L, Helgadottir H, Molle M, Born J (2006) Boosting slow oscillations during sleep potentiates memory. Nature 444(7119):610–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05278
Massimini M, Ferrarelli F, Huber R, Esser SK, Singh H, Tononi G (2005) Breakdown of cortical effective connectivity during sleep. Science 309(5744):2228–2232. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117256
Matsunaga K, Nitsche MA, Tsuji S, Rothwell JC (2004) Effect of transcranial DC sensorimotor cortex stimulation on somatosensory evoked potentials in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 115(2):456–460. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14744588
Mayberg HS, Lozano AM, Voon V, McNeely HE, Seminowicz D, Hamani C et al (2005) Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron 45(5):651–660. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15748841
Medeiros LF, de Souza IC, Vidor LP, de Souza A, Deitos A, Volz MS et al (2012) Neurobiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation: a review. Front Psych 3:110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00110
Meinzer M, Antonenko D, Lindenberg R, Hetzer S, Ulm L, Avirame K et al (2012) Electrical brain stimulation improves cognitive performance by modulating functional connectivity and task-specific activation. J Neurosci 32(5):1859–1866. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4812-11.2012
Meinzer M, Lindenberg R, Antonenko D, Flaisch T, Floel A (2013) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation temporarily reverses age-associated cognitive decline and functional brain activity changes. J Neurosci 33(30):12470–12478. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5743-12.2013
Melloni L, Molina C, Pena M, Torres D, Singer W, Rodriguez E (2007) Synchronization of neural activity across cortical areas correlates with conscious perception. J Neurosci 27(11):2858–2865. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17360907
Mishima T, Nagai T, Yahagi K, Akther S, Oe Y, Monai H et al (2019) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induces adrenergic receptor-dependent microglial morphological changes in mice. eNeuro 6(5). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0204-19.2019
Mohan A, De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2017) Robustness and dynamicity of functional networks in phantom sound. Neuroimage 146:171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.033
Mohan A, Alexandra SJ, Johnson CV, De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2018a) Effect of distress on transient network dynamics and topological equilibrium in phantom sound perception. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 84(Pt A):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.01.025
Mohan A, De Ridder D, Idiculla R, C DS, Vanneste S (2018b) Distress-dependent temporal variability of regions encoding domain-specific and domain-general behavioral manifestations of phantom percepts. Eur J Neurosci 48(2):1743–1764. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13988
Mohsen S, Mahmoudian S, Talebian S, Pourbakht A (2018) Prefrontal and auditory tRNS in sequence for treating chronic tinnitus: a modified multisite protocol. Brain Stimul 11(5):1177–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.04.018
Mohsen S, Mahmoudian S, Talebian S, Pourbakht A (2019) Multisite transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) modulates the distress network activity and oscillatory powers in subjects with chronic tinnitus. J Clin Neurosci 67:178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2019.06.033
Moliadze V, Antal A, Paulus W (2010) Boosting brain excitability by transcranial high frequency stimulation in the ripple range. J Physiol 588(Pt 24):4891–4904. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2010.196998
Moliadze V, Atalay D, Antal A, Paulus W (2012) Close to threshold transcranial electrical stimulation preferentially activates inhibitory networks before switching to excitation with higher intensities. Brain Stimul 5(4):505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.11.004
Momi D, Ozdemir RA, Tadayon E, Boucher P, Shafi MM, Pascual-Leone A, Santarnecchi E (2020) Network-level macroscale structural connectivity predicts propagation of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 229:117698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117698
Monai H, Hirase H (2018) Astrocytes as a target of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to treat depression. Neurosci Res 126:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2017.08.012
Moreno-Duarte I, Gebodh N, Schestatsky P, Guleyupoglu B, Reato D, Bikson M, Fregni F (2014) Transcranial electrical stimulation: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS). In: Kadosh RC (ed) The stimulated brain: cognitive enhancement using non-invasive brain stimulation. Academia Press, London
Mulquiney PG, Hoy KE, Daskalakis ZJ, Fitzgerald PB (2011) Improving working memory: exploring the effect of transcranial random noise stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Clin Neurophysiol 122(12):2384–2389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2011.05.009
Nikolin S, Loo CK, Bai S, Dokos S, Martin DM (2015) Focalised stimulation using high definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) to investigate declarative verbal learning and memory functioning. Neuroimage 117:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.019
Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2001) Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 57(10):1899–1901. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11723286
Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, Priori A, Lang N, Antal A et al (2008) Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimul 1(3):206–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004
Nitsche MA, Kuo M, Paulus W, Antal A (2015) Transcranial direct current stimulation: protocols and physiological mechanisms of action. In: Knotkova H, Rasche D (eds) Textbook of neuromodulation: principles, methods and clinical application. Springer, New York
Nowogrodzki A (2018) The world's strongest MRI machines are pushing human imaging to new limits. Nature 563(7729):24–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07182-7
Pascual-Leone A, Grafman J, Hallett M (1994) Modulation of cortical motor output maps during development of implicit and explicit knowledge. Science 263(5151):1287–1289. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=8122113
Paulus W (2011) Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES – tDCS; tRNS, tACS) methods. Neuropsychol Rehabil 21(5):602–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2011.557292
Paus T, Sipila PK, Strafella AP (2001) Synchronization of neuronal activity in the human primary motor cortex by transcranial magnetic stimulation: an EEG study. J Neurophysiol 86(4):1983–1990. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11600655
Pena-Gomez C, Sala-Lonch R, Junque C, Clemente IC, Vidal D, Bargallo N et al (2012) Modulation of large-scale brain networks by transcranial direct current stimulation evidenced by resting-state functional MRI. Brain Stimul 5(3):252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.08.006
Plewnia C, Bartels M, Gerloff C (2003) Transient suppression of tinnitus by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Ann Neurol 53(2):263–266. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12557296
Plewnia C, Reimold M, Najib A, Brehm B, Reischl G, Plontke SK, Gerloff C (2007) Dose-dependent attenuation of auditory phantom perception (tinnitus) by PET-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 28(3):238–246. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16773635
Polania R, Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2011) Modulating functional connectivity patterns and topological functional organization of the human brain with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 32(8):1236–1249. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21104
Polania R, Nitsche MA, Korman C, Batsikadze G, Paulus W (2012a) The importance of timing in segregated theta phase-coupling for cognitive performance. Curr Biol 22(14):1314–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.021
Polania R, Paulus W, Nitsche MA (2012b) Modulating cortico-striatal and thalamo-cortical functional connectivity with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 33(10):2499–2508. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21380
Poreisz C, Boros K, Antal A, Paulus W (2007) Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients. Brain Res Bull 72(4-6):208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.01.004
Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA, Escott KJ, Hopper S, Wells A et al (2019) Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18(1):41–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.168
Rabenstein M, Unverricht-Yeboah M, Keuters MH, Pikhovych A, Hucklenbroich J, Vay SU et al (2019) Transcranial current stimulation alters the expression of immune-mediating genes. Front Cell Neurosci 13:461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2019.00461
Radman T, Ramos RL, Brumberg JC, Bikson M (2009) Role of cortical cell type and morphology in subthreshold and suprathreshold uniform electric field stimulation in vitro. Brain Stimul 2(4):215–228., 228.e211–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.007
Ramirez RR, Kopell BH, Butson CR, Gaggl W, Friedland DR, Baillet S (2009) Neuromagnetic source imaging of abnormal spontaneous activity in tinnitus patient modulated by electrical cortical stimulation. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 1:1940–1944. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333457
Ranck JB Jr (1975) Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res 98(3):417–440. doi:0006-8993(75)90364-9 [pii]
Rauschecker JP, Leaver AM, Muhlau M (2010) Tuning out the noise: limbic-auditory interactions in tinnitus. Neuron 66(6):819–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.032
Reckow J, Rahman-Filipiak A, Garcia S, Schlaefflin S, Calhoun O, DaSilva AF et al (2018) Tolerability and blinding of 4x1 high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) at two and three milliamps. Brain Stimul 11(5):991–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.04.022
Redfearn JW, Lippold OC, Costain R (1964) A preliminary account of the clinical effects of polarizing the brain in certain psychiatric disorders. Br J Psychiatry 110:773–785. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14211694
Ridding MC, Rothwell JC (2007) Is there a future for therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation? Nat Rev Neurosci 8(7):559–567. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2169
Romanska A, Rezlescu C, Susilo T, Duchaine B, Banissy MJ (2015) High-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation enhances perception of facial identity. Cereb Cortex 25(11):4334–4340. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv016
Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R, Cohen LG, Daskalakis Z, Di Iorio R et al (2015) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clin Neurophysiol 126(6):1071–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.02.001
Rueger MA, Keuters MH, Walberer M, Braun R, Klein R, Sparing R et al (2012) Multi-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) elicits inflammatory and regenerative processes in the rat brain. PLoS One 7(8):e43776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043776
Ruffini G, Fox MD, Ripolles O, Miranda PC, Pascual-Leone A (2014) Optimization of multifocal transcranial current stimulation for weighted cortical pattern targeting from realistic modeling of electric fields. Neuroimage 89:216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.002
Ruohonen J, Karhu J (2012) tDCS possibly stimulates glial cells. Clin Neurophysiol 123(10):2006–2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2012.02.082
Rush S, Driscoll DA (1968) Current distribution in the brain from surface electrodes. Anesth Analg 47(6):717–723. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=4972743
Santarnecchi E, Polizzotto NR, Godone M, Giovannelli F, Feurra M, Matzen L et al (2013) Frequency-dependent enhancement of fluid intelligence induced by transcranial oscillatory potentials. Curr Biol 23(15):1449–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.022
Schlee W, Hartmann T, Langguth B, Weisz N (2009a) Abnormal resting-state cortical coupling in chronic tinnitus. BMC Neurosci 10:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-11
Schlee W, Mueller N, Hartmann T, Keil J, Lorenz I, Weisz N (2009b) Mapping cortical hubs in tinnitus. BMC Biol 7:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-7-80
Schoisswohl S, Agrawal K, Simoes J, Neff P, Schlee W, Langguth B, Schecklmann M (2019) RTMS parameters in tinnitus trials: a systematic review. Sci Rep 9(1):12190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48750-9
Schonfeldt-Lecuona C, Thielscher A, Freudenmann RW, Kron M, Spitzer M, Herwig U (2005) Accuracy of stereotaxic positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topogr 17(4):253–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-005-6033-1
Seidman MD, Ridder DD, Elisevich K, Bowyer SM, Darrat I, Dria J et al (2008) Direct electrical stimulation of Heschl's gyrus for tinnitus treatment. Laryngoscope 118(3):491–500. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18094653
Shekhawat GS, Vanneste S (2018) Optimization of transcranial direct current stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for tinnitus: a non-linear dose-response effect. Sci Rep 8(1):8311. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26665-1
Shekhawat GS, Searchfield GD, Stinear CM (2014) Randomized trial of transcranial direct current stimulation and hearing aids for tinnitus management. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 28(5):410–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313508655
Shekhawat GS, Sundram F, Bikson M, Truong D, De Ridder D, Stinear CM et al (2015) Intensity, duration, and location of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation for tinnitus relief. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968315595286
Shen K, Hutchison RM, Bezgin G, Everling S, McIntosh AR (2015) Network structure shapes spontaneous functional connectivity dynamics. J Neurosci 35(14):5579–5588. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4903-14.2015
Shim HJ, Kwak MY, An YH, Kim DH, Kim YJ, Kim HJ (2015) Feasibility and safety of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation paired with notched music therapy for the treatment of chronic tinnitus. J Audiol Otol 19(3):159–167. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2015.19.3.159
Shore SE (2005) Multisensory integration in the dorsal cochlear nucleus: unit responses to acoustic and trigeminal ganglion stimulation. Eur J Neurosci 21(12):3334–3348. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16026471
Shore SE, Koehler S, Oldakowski M, Hughes LF, Syed S (2008) Dorsal cochlear nucleus responses to somatosensory stimulation are enhanced after noise-induced hearing loss. Eur J Neurosci 27(1):155–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05983.x
Shore SE, Roberts LE, Langguth B (2016) Maladaptive plasticity in tinnitus – triggers, mechanisms and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol 12(3):150–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2016.12
Soleimani R, Jalali MM, Hasandokht T (2016) Therapeutic impact of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on tinnitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273(7):1663–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3642-5
Song JJ, Vanneste S, Van de Heyning P, De Ridder D (2012) Transcranial direct current stimulation in tinnitus patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. ScientificWorldJournal 2012:427941. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/427941
Speer AM, Kimbrell TA, Wassermann EM, J DR, Willis MW, Herscovitch P, Post RM (2000) Opposite effects of high and low frequency rTMS on regional brain activity in depressed patients. Biol Psychiatry 48(12):1133–1141. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11137053
Sporns O, Chialvo DR, Kaiser M, Hilgetag CC (2004) Organization, development and function of complex brain networks. Trends Cogn Sci 8(9):418–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.008
Stagg CJ, Lin RL, Mezue M, Segerdahl A, Kong Y, Xie J, Tracey I (2013) Widespread modulation of cerebral perfusion induced during and after transcranial direct current stimulation applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 33(28):11425–11431. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3887-12.2013
Stefanescu RA, Koehler SD, Shore SE (2015) Stimulus-timing-dependent modifications of rate-level functions in animals with and without tinnitus. J Neurophysiol 113(3):956–970. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00457.2014
Steinmetz H, Furst G, Freund HJ (1990) Variation of perisylvian and calcarine anatomic landmarks within stereotaxic proportional coordinates. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 11(6):1123–1130. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=2124038
Stramaccia DF, Penolazzi B, Sartori G, Braga M, Mondini S, Galfano G (2015) Assessing the effects of tDCS over a delayed response inhibition task by targeting the right inferior frontal gyrus and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Exp Brain Res 233(8):2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4297-6
Suk WC, Kim SJ, Chang DS, Lee HY (2018) Characteristics of stimulus intensity in transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation for chronic tinnitus. J Int Adv Otol 14(2):267–272. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2018.3977
Teismann H, Wollbrink A, Okamoto H, Schlaug G, Rudack C, Pantev C (2014) Combining transcranial direct current stimulation and tailor-made notched music training to decrease tinnitus-related distress – a pilot study. PLoS One 9(2):e89904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089904
Terney D, Chaieb L, Moliadze V, Antal A, Paulus W (2008) Increasing human brain excitability by transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. J Neurosci 28(52):14147–14155. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4248-08.2008
Thut G, Schyns PG, Gross J (2011) Entrainment of perceptually relevant brain oscillations by non-invasive rhythmic stimulation of the human brain. Front Psychol 2:170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00170
To WT, Ost J, Hart J Jr, De Ridder D, Vanneste S (2017) The added value of auditory cortex transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) after bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for tinnitus. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 124(1):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1634-2
Tsanov M (2015) Septo-hippocampal signal processing: breaking the code. Prog Brain Res 219:103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.04.002
Tyler S, Conto F, Battelli L (2015) Rapid effect of high-frequency tRNS over the parietal lobe during a temporal perceptual learning task. J Vis 15(12):393. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.12.393
Tyler R, Cacace A, Stocking C, Tarver B, Engineer N, Martin J et al (2017) Vagus nerve stimulation paired with tones for the treatment of tinnitus: a prospective randomized double-blind controlled pilot study in humans. Sci Rep 7(1):11960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12178-w
Vanneste S, De Ridder D (2011) Bifrontal transcranial direct current stimulation modulates tinnitus intensity and tinnitus-distress-related brain activity. Eur J Neurosci 34(4):605–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07778.x
Vanneste S, De Ridder D (2012a) The involvement of the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in tinnitus: a TMS study. Exp Brain Res 221(3):345–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3177-6
Vanneste S, De Ridder D (2012b) Differences between a single session and repeated sessions of 1 Hz TMS by double-cone coil prefrontal stimulation for the improvement of tinnitus. Brain Stimul. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.03.019
Vanneste S, De Ridder D (2015) Deafferentation-based pathophysiological differences in phantom sound: Tinnitus with and without hearing loss. Neuroimage 129:80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.002
Vanneste S, Plazier M, Ost J, van der Loo E, Van de Heyning P, De Ridder D (2010) Bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulation for tinnitus by transcranial direct current stimulation: a preliminary clinical study. Exp Brain Res 202(4):779–785. Retrieved from PM:20186404
Vanneste S, Focquaert F, Van de Heyning P, De Ridder D (2011) Different resting state brain activity and functional connectivity in patients who respond and not respond to bifrontal tDCS for tinnitus suppression. Exp Brain Res 210(2):217–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2617-z
Vanneste S, van der Loo E, Plazier M, De Ridder D (2012) Parietal double-cone coil stimulation in tinnitus. Exp Brain Res 221(3):337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3176-7
Vanneste S, Fregni F, De Ridder D (2013a) Head-to-head comparison of transcranial random noise stimulation, transcranial AC stimulation, and transcranial DC stimulation for tinnitus. Front Psych 4:158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00158
Vanneste S, Walsh V, Van De Heyning P, De Ridder D (2013b) Comparing immediate transient tinnitus suppression using tACS and tDCS: a placebo-controlled study. Exp Brain Res 226(1):25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3406-7
Vanneste S, Joos K, Langguth B, To WT, De Ridder D (2014) Neuronal correlates of maladaptive coping: an EEG-study in tinnitus patients. PLoS One 9(2):e88253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088253
Vanneste S, Faber M, Langguth B, De Ridder D (2016) The neural correlates of cognitive dysfunction in phantom sounds. Brain Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.03.016
Vanneste S, Alsalman O, De Ridder D (2019) Top-down and bottom-up regulated auditory phantom perception. J Neurosci 39(2):364–378. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0966-18.2018
Villamar MF, Volz MS, Bikson M, Datta A, Dasilva AF, Fregni F (2013) Technique and considerations in the use of 4x1 ring high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS). J Vis Exp 77:e50309. https://doi.org/10.3791/50309
Voroslakos M, Takeuchi Y, Brinyiczki K, Zombori T, Oliva A, Fernandez-Ruiz A et al (2018) Direct effects of transcranial electric stimulation on brain circuits in rats and humans. Nat Commun 9(1):483. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02928-3
Vossen A, Gross J, Thut G (2015) Alpha power increase after transcranial alternating current stimulation at alpha frequency (alpha-tACS) reflects plastic changes rather than entrainment. Brain Stimul 8(3):499–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.12.004
Wagner T, Fregni F, Fecteau S, Grodzinsky A, Zahn M, Pascual-Leone A (2007) Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study. Neuroimage 35(3):1113–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.027
Walsh V, Rushworth M (1999) A primer of magnetic stimulation as a tool for neuropsychology. Neuropsychologia 37(2):125–135. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10080370
Wang H, Wang X, Scheich H (1996) LTD and LTP induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in auditory cortex. Neuroreport 7(2):521–525. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=8730820
Wang H, Wang X, Wetzel W, Scheich H (1999) Rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation in auditory cortex induces LTP and LTD and impairs discrimination learning of frequency-modulated tones. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 51:361–367. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10590969
Wang TC, Tyler RS, Chang TY, Chen JC, Lin CD, Chung HK, Tsou YA (2018a) Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with tinnitus: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 127(2):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489417744317
Wang Y, Zhang JN, Hu W, Li JJ, Zhou JX, Zhang JP et al (2018b) The characteristics of cognitive impairment in subjective chronic tinnitus. Brain Behav 8(3):e00918. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.918
Weber MJ, Messing SB, Rao H, Detre JA, Thompson-Schill SL (2014) Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation alters activation and connectivity in cortical and subcortical reward systems: a tDCS-fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp 35(8):3673–3686. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22429
Weisz N, Hartmann T, Dohrmann K, Schlee W, Norena A (2006) High-frequency tinnitus without hearing loss does not mean absence of deafferentation. Hear Res 222(1-2):108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2006.09.003
Weisz N, Muller S, Schlee W, Dohrmann K, Hartmann T, Elbert T (2007) The neural code of auditory phantom perception. J Neurosci 27(6):1479–1484. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17287523
Whittington MA, Traub RD, Adams NE (2018) A future for neuronal oscillation research. Brain Neurosci Adv 2:2398212818794827. https://doi.org/10.1177/2398212818794827
Wichova H, Alvi SA, Shew M, Lin J, Sale K, Larsen C, Staecker H (2018) Tinnitus perception in patients after vagal nerve stimulator implantation for epilepsy. Am J Otolaryngol 39(5):599–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2018.07.009
Witkowski M, Garcia-Cossio E, Chander BS, Braun C, Birbaumer N, Robinson SE, Soekadar SR (2015) Mapping entrained brain oscillations during transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.024
Ylikoski J, Lehtimaki J, Pirvola U, Makitie A, Aarnisalo A, Hyvarinen P, Ylikoski M (2017) Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation reduces sympathetic preponderance in patients with tinnitus. Acta Otolaryngol 137(4):426–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2016.1269197
Yokley BH, Hartman M, Slusher BS (2017) Role of academic drug discovery in the quest for new CNS therapeutics. ACS Chem Nerosci 8(3):429–431. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00040
Yuan T, Yadollahpour A, Salgado-Ramirez J, Robles-Camarillo D, Ortega-Palacios R (2018) Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of tinnitus: a review of clinical trials and mechanisms of action. BMC Neurosci 19(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12868-018-0467-3
Yue L, Xiao-lin H, Tao S (2009) The effects of chronic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid in rat brain. Brain Res 1260:94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.01.009
Zaehle T, Rach S, Herrmann CS (2010) Transcranial alternating current stimulation enhances individual alpha activity in human EEG. PLoS One 5(11):e13766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013766
Zaehle T, Beretta M, Jancke L, Herrmann CS, Sandmann P (2011) Excitability changes induced in the human auditory cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: direct electrophysiological evidence. Exp Brain Res 215(2):135–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2879-5
Zaghi S, Acar M, Hultgren B, Boggio PS, Fregni F (2010a) Noninvasive brain stimulation with low-intensity electrical currents: putative mechanisms of action for direct and alternating current stimulation. Neuroscientist 16(3):285–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858409336227
Zaghi S, de Freitas Rezende L, de Oliveira LM, El-Nazer R, Menning S, Tadini L, Fregni F (2010b) Inhibition of motor cortex excitability with 15Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Neurosci Lett 479(3):211–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.05.060
Zago S, Ferrucci R, Fregni F, Priori A (2008) Bartholow, Sciamanna, Alberti: pioneers in the electrical stimulation of the exposed human cerebral cortex. Neuroscientist 14(5):521–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407311101
Zeman F, Koller M, Figueiredo R, Aazevedo A, Rates M, Coelho C et al (2011) Tinnitus handicap inventory for evaluating treatment effects: which changes are clinically relevant? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 145(2):282–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599811403882
Zhang K, Guo L, Zhang J, Rui G, An G, Zhou Y et al (2020) tDCS accelerates the rehabilitation of MCAO-induced motor function deficits via neurogenesis modulated by the notch1 signaling pathway. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 34(7):640–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968320925474
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Ridder, D., Adhia, D., Langguth, B. (2021). Tinnitus and Brain Stimulation. In: Searchfield, G.D., Zhang, J. (eds) The Behavioral Neuroscience of Tinnitus. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, vol 51. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2021_219
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2021_219
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85502-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85503-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)