Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Glaucoma Rehabilitation Using ElectricAI Transcranial Stimulation (GREAT)–Optimizing Stimulation Protocol for Vision Enhancement Using an RCT

  • Xiaolin Mei
  • , Lai Lin Tsang
  • , Theodore Christian Jacques
  • , Bernhard A. Sabel
  • , Christopher Kai Shun Leung
  • , Jonathan Cheuk Hung Chan
  • , Benjamin Thompson
  • , Allen Ming Yan Cheong (Corresponding Author)

Research output: Journal article publicationJournal articleAcademic researchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: We compared the effect of three different transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) protocols delivered to the occipital lobe on peripheral vision in patients with glaucoma.

Methods: A double-masked, placebo-controlled study was conducted with 35 patients with glaucoma. We compared three different tES protocols: anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) against sham stimulation. Each patient attended four stimulation sessions (a-tDCS, tACS, tRNS, and sham) in a random order with at least 48 hours between visits. Stimulation involved placing an anodal electrode over the occipital lobe (Oz) and cathodal electrode on the cheek for 20 minutes. High-resolution perimetry (HRP) and multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) measurements were made before and immediately after stimulation. Changes in HRP detection accuracy/reaction time and mfVEP signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)/latency were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results: Compared to sham, HRP detection accuracy was significantly improved after a-tDCS in both the central 20-degree (b = 0.032, P = 0.018) and peripheral analysis (b = 0.051, P = 0.002). Additionally, mfVEP SNR was significantly increased (b = 0.016, P = 0.017) and the latency was shortened (b = −1.405, P = 0.04) by the a-tDCS in the central 20-degree analysis. In the peripheral analysis, there was a trend toward an enhancement of SNR after a-tDCS stimulation (b = 0.014, P = 0.052), but it did not reach statistical significance; latency was increased after tACS (b = 1.623, P = 0.041). No significant effects were found in comparison to other active tES protocols.

Conclusions: A single session of a-tDCS enhances perceptual and electrophysiologic measures of vision in patients with glaucoma. However, the small magnitude of changes observed in HRP (3.2% for accuracy in central and 5.1% in peripheral) did not exceed previous test variability and may not be clinically meaningful.

Translational Relevance: a-tDCS holds promise as a potential treatment for enhancing visual function. However, future studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effects and clinical relevance of this intervention using validated measures of perimetric changes in the visual field.
Original languageEnglish
Article number25
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalTranslational Vision Science and Technology
Volume13
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20 Sept 2024

Keywords

  • transcranial electrical stimulation (tES)
  • visual function
  • peripheral field loss
  • vision rehabilitation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Glaucoma Rehabilitation Using ElectricAI Transcranial Stimulation (GREAT)–Optimizing Stimulation Protocol for Vision Enhancement Using an RCT'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this