Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contrasting effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on central and peripheral visual fields

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

Abstract

Recent research suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can affect visual processing and that it can be useful in visual rehabilitation. Nevertheless, there are still few investigations on the subject. tDCS selectivity and the extent of its outcomes on visual perception are still to be assessed. Here, we investigate whether central and peripheral visual fields are equally affected by tDCS. We also tried to reproduce a previous work that has evaluated tDCS effects on the central visual field only (Kraft et al. 207:283–290, 2010). Fifteen healthy subjects participated in this randomized repeated-measure design study and received 1.5-mA anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation in different sessions, while performing 10-2 and 60-4 protocols in an automated perimeter. Anodal tDCS significantly decreased thresholds, but was limited to the most eccentric regions of the visual field measured (60°). This suggests that tDCS might be used for rehabilitation of peripheral visual field losses. We did not replicate the excitatory tDCS effect in the central visual field as previously reported by another group. Instead, we observed a trend toward an inhibitory (yet not statistically significant) effect of anodal tDCS on the central field. This might be explained by methodological differences. These results highlight that although tDCS is a technique with a low focality in the spatial domain, its effects might be highly focal in a functional domain. When taken together with previous findings, this also suggests that tDCS may have a differential effect on different retinotopic areas in the brain.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Accornero N, Votti P, La Riccia M, Gregori B (2007) Visual Evoked potentials modulation during direct current cortical polarization. Exp Brain Res 178(2):261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Antal A, Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2001) External modulation of visual perception in humans. Neuroreport 12:3553–3555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Antal A, Kincses TZ, Nitsche MA, Bartfai O, Paulus W (2004a) Excitability changes induced in the human primary visual cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: direct electrophysiological evidence. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:702–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antal A, Varga ET, Nitsche MA, Chadaide Z, Paulus W, Kovacs G, Vidnyanszky Z (2004b) Direct current stimulation over MT +/V5 modulates motion aftereffect in humans. Neuroreport 15:2491–2494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bikson M, Rahman A (2013) Origins of specificity during tDCS: anatomical, activity-selective, and input-bias mechanisms. Front Hum Neurosci 7:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bikson M, Rahman A, Datta A (2012) Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin EEG Neurosci 43(3):176–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolognini N, Olgiati E, Rossetti A, Maravita A (2010a) Enhancing multisensory spatial orienting by brain polarization of the parietal cortex. Eur J Neurosci 31:1800–1806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolognini N, Fregni F, Casati C, Olgiati E, Vallar G (2010b) Brain polarization of parietal cortex augments training-induced of visual exploratory and attentional skills. Brain Res 1349:76–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa TL, Nagy BV, Barboni MTS, Boggio PS, Ventura DF (2012) Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates human color discrimination in a pathway specific manner. Front Psychiatry 3:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa TL, Hamer RD, Nagy BV, Barboni MT, Gualtieri M, Boggio PS, Ventura DF (2015a) Transcranial direct current stimulation can selectively affect different processing channels in human visual cortex. Exp Brain Res. doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4199-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa TL, Costa MF, Magalhães A, Rêgo GG, Nagy BV, Boggio PS, Ventura DF (2015b) The role of early stages of cortical visual processing in size and distance judgment: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. Neurosci Lett 588:78–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Valois KK (1977) Spatial frequency adaptation can enhance contrast sensitivity. Vis Res 17:1057–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG (2006) Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 117(4):845–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J (1989) The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 107:81–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iuculano T, Kadosh RC (2013) The mental cost of cognitive enhancement. J Neurosci 33:4482–4486

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft A, Roehmel J, Olma M, Schmidt S, Irlbacher K, Brandt S (2010) Transcranial direct current stimulation affects visual perception measured by threshold perimetry. Exp Brain Res 207:283–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lapenta OM, Minati L, Fregni F, Boggio PS (2013) Je pense donc je fais: transcranial direct current stimulation modulates brain oscillations associated with motor imagery and movement observation. Front Hum Neurosci 7:246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda PC, Lomarev M, Hallett M (2006) Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1623–1629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olma MC, Kraft A, Roehmel J, Irlbacher K, Brandt SA (2011) Excitability changes in the visual cortex quantified with signal detection analysis. Restor neurol Neurosci 29(6):453–461

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Papp A, Kis K, Németh J (2001) conversion formulas between automated-perimetry indexes as measured by two different types of instrument. Ophthalmologica 215:87–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters MA, Thompson B, Merabet LB, Wu AD, Shams L (2013) Anodal tDCS to V1 blocks visual perceptual learning consolidation. Neuropsychologia 51:1234–1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plow EB, Obretenova SN, Halko MA, Kenkel S, Jackson ML, Pascual-Leone A, Merabet LB (2011) Combining visual rehabilitative training and noninvasive brain stimulation to enhance visual function in patients with hemianopia: a comparative case study. PM&R 3:825–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plow EB, Obretenova SN, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A, Merabet LB (2012a) Comparison of visual field training for hemianopia with active versus sham transcranial direct cortical stimulation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 26:616–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plow EB, Obretenova SN, Jackson ML, Merabet LB (2012b) Temporal profile of functional visual rehabilitative outcomes modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuromodulation 15:367–373

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sack AT, Cohen Kadosh R, Schuhmann T, Moerel M, Walsh V, Goebel R (2009) Optimizing functional accuracy of TMS in cognitive studies: a comparison of methods. J Cognit Neurosci 21:207–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel D, Byblow W, Hess RF, Thompson B (2013) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation transiently improves contrast sensitivity and normalizes visual cortex activation in individuals with amblyopia. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 27:760–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang B, Yamamoto H, Wu J, Ejima Y (2013) Visual field maps of the human visual cortex for central and peripheral vision. Neurosci Biomed Eng 1(2):102–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Psicologia Experimental, Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Thiago L. Costa, Mirella Gualtieri, Mirella T. S. Barboni, Rafael K. Katayama & Dora F. Ventura

  2. Social and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory and Developmental Disorders Program, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, Rua Piauí, 181, 10º Andar, São Paulo, SP, 01241-001, Brazil

    Thiago L. Costa & Paulo S. Boggio

Authors
  1. Thiago L. Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirella Gualtieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirella T. S. Barboni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael K. Katayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paulo S. Boggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dora F. Ventura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thiago L. Costa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Costa, T.L., Gualtieri, M., Barboni, M.T.S. et al. Contrasting effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on central and peripheral visual fields. Exp Brain Res 233, 1391–1397 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4213-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4213-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation