Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), including transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation (tDCS, tACS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques increasingly used for modulation of central nervous system excitability in humans. Here we address methodological issues required for tES application. This review covers technical aspects of tES, as well as applications like exploration of brain physiology, modelling approaches, tES in cognitive neurosciences, and interventional approaches. It aims to help the reader to appropriately design and conduct studies involving these brain stimulation techniques, understand limitations and avoid shortcomings, which might hamper the scientific rigor and potential applications in the clinical domain.

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6-7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

1. Using two magnetic stimulators, we investigated the effect of a conditioning magnetic stimulus over the motor cortex of one hemisphere on the size of EMG responses evoked in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle by a magnetic test stimulus given over the opposite hemisphere. 2. A single conditioning shock to one hemisphere produced inhibition of the test response evoked from the opposite hemisphere when the conditioning‐test interval was 5‐6 ms or longer. We shall refer to this as interhemispheric inhibition. However, the minimum latency of inhibition observed using surface EMG responses may have underestimated the true interhemispheric conduction time. Single motor unit studies suggested values 4‐7 ms longer than the minimum interval observed with surface EMG. 3. Interhemispheric inhibition was seen when the test muscle was active or relaxed. Increasing the intensity of the conditioning stimulus increased the duration of inhibition: increasing the intensity of the test stimulus reduced the depth of inhibition. 4. The conditioning coil had to be placed on the appropriate area of scalp for inhibition to occur. The effect of the conditioning stimulus was maximal when it was applied over the hand area of motor cortex, and decreased when the stimulus was moved medial or lateral to that point. 5. The inhibitory effect on the test stimulus probably occurred at the level of the cerebral cortex. In contrast to the inhibition of test responses evoked by magnetic test stimuli, test responses evoked in active FDI by a small anodal electric shock were not significantly inhibited by a contralateral magnetic conditioning stimulus. Similarly, H reflexes in relaxed forearm flexor muscles were unaffected by conditioning stimuli to the ipsilateral hemisphere. However, inhibition was observed if the experiment was repeated with the muscles active.