Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS)-a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that modulates cortical oscillations through entrainment-has been demonstrated to alter oscillatory activity and enhance cognition in healthy adults. TACS is being explored as a tool to improve cognition and memory in patient populations with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). To review the growing body of literature and current findings obtained from the application of tACS in patients with MCI or AD, highlighting the effects of gamma tACS on brain function, memory, and cognition. Evidence on the use of brain stimulation in animal models of AD is also discussed. Important parameters of stimulation are underscored for consideration in protocols that aim to apply tACS as a therapeutic tool in patients with MCI/AD. The application of gamma tACS has shown promising results in the improvement of cognitive and memory processes that are impacted in patients with MCI/AD. These data demonstrate the potential for tACS as an interventional stand-alone tool or alongside pharmacological and/or other behavioral interventions in MCI/AD. While the use of tACS in MCI/AD has evidenced encouraging results, the effects of this stimulation technique on brain function and pathophysiology in MCI/AD remains to be fully determined. This review explores the literature and highlights the need for continued research on tACS as a tool to alter the course of the disease by reinstating oscillatory activity, improving cognitive and memory processing, delaying disease progression, and remediating cognitive abilities in patients with MCI/AD.

Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), paired with behavioral language therapy, have demonstrated the capacity to enhance language abilities in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a debilitating degenerative neurological syndrome that leads to declines in communication abilities. The aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of tDCS and TMS in improving language outcomes in PPA, explore the magnitude of effects between stimulation modalities, and examine potential moderators that may influence treatment effects. Standard mean differences for change in performance from baseline to post-stimulation on language-related tasks were evaluated. Six tDCS studies and two repetitive TMS studies met inclusion criteria and provided 22 effects in the analysis. Random effect models revealed a significant, heterogeneous, and moderate effect size for tDCS and TMS in the enhancement of language outcomes. Findings demonstrate that naming ability significantly improves due to brain stimulation, an effect found to be largely driven by tDCS. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to determine long-term effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques on language abilities, further delineate the efficacy of tDCS and TMS, and identify optimal parameters to enable the greatest gains for persons with PPA.

This guideline summarizes updated safety data (2017-2025) and provides expert recommendations on the use of low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in humans. tES encompasses several techniques including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), oscillatory transcranial direct current stimulation (otDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial temporal interference stimulation (tTIS), and their combinations or variations. Across over 300,000 sessions involving healthy individuals, patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, and other clinical populations, no tES-related serious adverse events (AEs) have been reported. Moderate AEs are rare and limited to a small range of specific applications. Mild AEs are common and include transient symptoms such as localized sensations (e.g., tingling or burning), headaches, and fatigue. Similar mild AEs are also reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The frequency, magnitude, and type of AEs are comparable across healthy, clinical, and vulnerable groups, including children, elderly, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application with EEG, TMS, or neuroimaging) have not shown increased safety risks. Safety is well-established for both bipolar and multichannel tES when applied up to 4 mA and up to 60 min per day. Higher intensities and longer stimulation durations may also be safe. Nevertheless, the number of studies using intensities above 4 mA or stimulating longer than 60 min is low. Home-based use of treatments is growing rapidly, leveraging remote supervision to provide patients with greater access and enable repeated, sustained dosing paradigms. We recommend using screening and AE questionnaires in future controlled studies, in particular when planning to extend the stimulation parameters applied. We discuss recent regulatory and ethical issues.

Genetic testing is now the standard of care for many neurologic conditions. Health care disparities are unfortunately widespread in the US health care system, but disparities in the utilization of genetic testing for neurologic conditions have not been studied. We tested the hypothesis that access to and results of genetic testing vary according to race, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, and insurance status for adults with neurologic conditions. We analyzed retrospective data from patients who underwent genetic evaluation and testing through our institution's neurogenetics program. We tested for differences between demographic groups in 3 steps of a genetic evaluation pathway: (1) attending a neurogenetic evaluation, (2) completing genetic testing, and (3) receiving a diagnostic result. We compared patients on this genetic evaluation pathway with the population of all neurology outpatients at our institution, using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Between 2015 and 2022, a total of 128,440 patients were seen in our outpatient neurology clinics and 2,540 patients underwent genetic evaluation. Black patients were less than half as likely as White patients to be evaluated (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, p < 0.001), and this disparity was similar after controlling for other demographic factors in multivariable analysis. Patients from the least wealthy quartile of zip codes were also less likely to be evaluated (OR 0.67, p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent evaluation, there were no disparities in the likelihood of completing genetic testing, nor in the likelihood of a diagnostic result after adjusting for age. Analyses restricted to specific indications for genetic testing supported these findings. We observed unequal utilization of our clinical neurogenetics program for patients from marginalized and minoritized demographic groups, especially Black patients. Among patients who do undergo evaluation, all groups benefit similarly from genetic testing when it is indicated. Understanding and removing barriers to accessing genetic testing will be essential to health care equity and optimal care for all patients with neurologic disorders.

Objectives: We hypothesized that measures of cortical thickness and volume in language areas would correlate with response to treatment with high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) in persons with primary progressive aphasia (PPA).Materials and Methods: In a blinded, within-group crossover study, PPA patients (N = 12) underwent a 2-week intervention HD-tDCS paired with constraint-induced language therapy (CILT). Multi-level linear regression (backward-fitted models) were performed to assess cortical measures as predictors of tDCS-induced naming improvements, measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-naming subtest, from baseline to immediately after and 6 weeks post-intervention.Results: Greater baseline thickness of the pars opercularis significantly predicted naming gains (p = 0.03) immediately following intervention, while greater thickness of the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) and lower thickness of the superior temporal gyrus (STG) significantly predicted 6-week naming gains (p’s < 0.02). Thickness did not predict naming gains in sham. Volume did not predict immediate gains for active stimulation. Greater volume of the pars triangularis and MTG, but lower STG volume significantly predicted 6-week naming gains in active stimulation. Greater pars orbitalis and MTG volume, and lower STG volume predicted immediate naming gains in sham (p’s < 0.05). Volume did not predict 6-week naming gains in sham.Conclusion: Cortical thickness and volume were predictive of tDCS-induced naming improvement in PPA patients. The finding that frontal thickness predicted immediate active tDCS-induced naming gains while temporal areas predicted naming changes at 6-week suggests that a broader network of regions may be important for long-term maintenance of treatment gains. The finding that volume predicted immediate naming performance in the sham condition may reflect the benefits of behavioral speech language therapy and neural correlates of its short-lived treatment gains. Collectively, thickness and volume were predictive of treatment gains in the active condition but not sham, suggesting that pairing HD-tDCS with CILT may be important for maintaining treatment effects.

Post-stroke cognitive impairment is a common and disabling condition with few effective therapeutic options. After stroke, neural reorganization and other neuroplastic processes occur in response to ischemic injury, which can result in clinical improvement through spontaneous recovery. Neuromodulation through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising intervention to augment underlying neuroplasticity in order to improve cognitive function. This form of neuromodulation leverages mechanisms of neuroplasticity post-stroke to optimize neural reorganization and improve function. In this review, we summarize the current state of cognitive neurorehabilitation post-stroke, the practical features of tDCS, its uses in stroke-related cognitive impairment across cognitive domains, and special considerations for the use of tDCS in the post-stroke patient population.