A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A18 A19 A21 F01 F02 INF Ö

Treasure Box Funding for Vuk Marković (A06): Deeper Underground

28. March 2023

Transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial temporal interference and targeted ultrasound therapy are promising methods for neuroscientific research. They allow the targeted stimulation of even deep-seated areas of the brain and may also have prospective applications in medicine. We are therefore very pleased to give Vuk Marković (A06) the opportunity to deepen his knowledge of these methods as part of the treasure chest funding. In the future, the entire SFB 1280 can benefit from the new expert in its ranks. Vuk describes the relevance of the methods as follows:

Over the past few decades, noninvasive brain stimulation methods (e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (Nitsche & Paulus, 2000) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) (Barker et al., 1985)) have gained momentum as promising ways to investigate brain functions and its underlying processes. The possibility of causally influencing processes in the brain without tissue damage and observing changes in subjects’ neural activity during experimental tasks opened up a tremendous field of possibilities for addressing numerous research questions. In addition, clinical application of these methods has been established and the designs of new treatment protocols are currently being developed in research institutions worldwide.

On the other hand, the mentioned methods have their limitations and challenges. Most of the challenges are related to focality of the stimulation (i.e. how stimulation affects the desired area but also adjacent and distant areas) and depth of penetration (i.e. how deep could stimulation reach brain tissue). For instance, modeling data suggest that tDCS could have non-homogenous effects on stimulating an area when gyri and sulci geometry is taken into account (Datta et al., 2009). Furthermore, anatomical features such as thicknesses of the cerebrospinal fluid and the skull, the gyral depth and the distance to the anode and cathode of each participant contribute to variations of distribution of the current (Opitz et al., 2015). In addition, tDCS may have effect not only restricted to the area of interest but could also modulate functional connectivity between distant, but functionally associated brain regions (Polania et al., 2011). TMS has similar challenges. For example, focality of the most commonly used figure-of-eight TMS coil was about 5 cm2 (Deng et al., 2013) and there is generally a trade-off between stimulation depth and focality of effects that makes it difficult to activate deeper brain regions without affecting more superficial regions to a greater extent (Chen et al., 2019). Therefore, TMS and tDCS are generally constrained to targeting superficial cortical regions, as their efficacy declines exponentially with depth (Lee et al., 2022).

As the human mind does not stop when there are obstacles, new methods have been developed. For example, focused ultrasound (US) and transcranial temporal interference (TI) stimulation are two approaches that might be used to overcome current limitations.

Apart from application in clinical diagnostics, ultrasound (US) can be used to safely modulate brain activity through the application of acoustic waves with characteristic properties of wavelength, amplitude, and frequency (Sarica et al., 2022; Dell’Italia et al., 2022). Furthermore, it has superior properties regarding focality and depth of the stimulation. For example, focused US can be directed to the brain tissue with a resolution of a few millimeters in diameter, could penetrate the brain to around 15 centimeters and its effect could last from 10-40 minutes after stimulation (Bystritsky et al., 2011). Therefore, this method has the potential to modulate subcortical structures with high precision (e.g. Chain et al., 2021). Also, as the US energy is mechanical rather than electromagnetic, US could be used simultaneously with fMRI for brain mapping relatively uncomplicated (Bystritsky et al., 2011).

Transcranial temporal interference electrical stimulation is another innovative non- invasive brain stimulation method that could neuromodulate deep brain structures while minimizing effects on overlying cortical areas (Grossman et al., 2017). For example, TI stimulation showed a more focal effect compared to transcranial alternating current stimulation (regions of interest were the left hippocampus, left motor area, and thalamus) by substantially reducing co-stimulation in cortical areas in the proximity of stimulation electrodes (von Conta et al., 2021). Furthermore, another study showed that TI stimulation could affect motor learning when the striatum has been targeted (Wessel et al., 2021).

The SFB 1280 has set up a budget for its young scientists to realize their own research ideas. We use the “treasure chest” to finance convincing and independent study concepts of our early career researchers.

New Year, New Me: The Facts

As the calendar turns to a new year, millions of people around the world commit to New Year’s resolutions, making promises to use the new year as a fresh beginning and an opportunity for transformation. In 2024, almost three-quarters of the British population set themselves New Year’s resolutions — that’s around 40 million people (or the entire population of Canada). This tradition was particularly strong among younger generations, with 96% of Generation Z (aged 18-27) planning resolutions, compared to just 35% of the Silent Generation (aged 79+).

Most common new years resolutions:

  1. Saving more money (52%)
  2. Eat healthier (50%)
  3. Exercise more (48%)
  4. Lose weight (37%)
  5. Spend more time with family/friends (35%)

How long do most resolutions normally last before being broken?

  • Data from America (2016) shows that 75% of individuals maintain their resolutions through the first week. 
  • 64% of individuals maintain their resolutions through the first month. 
  • 46% of individuals in America keep their resolutions past the 6-month mark.

What makes resolutions stick?

Oscarsson et al. (2020) conducted research into what makes New Year’s resolutions stick. Biggest success rates depended on how people phrased their goals. Participants who set approach-oriented goals (trying to move toward or maintain a desirable outcome or state) than those with avoidance-oriented goals (trying to move toward or maintain a desirable outcome or state) were significantly more successful (58.9% vs. 47.1%) at sticking to their goals.

The study also investigates the effects of outside support. These participants received monthly follow-ups and emails with information and exercises for coping with hurdles when striving toward personal goals, and were also encouraged to set goals using the SMART technique and to set interim goals. The group that received some support was exclusively and significantly more successful compared to the groups who received a lot of support or no support at all. 

Additionally, you might feel more successful if you set goals that are measurable in numbers. While success for a person striving to quit smoking or lose weight could easily be measured in the number of cigarettes smoked or body mass index, the success for a person striving to “take better care of themselves” could be highly subjective and possibly impossible to measure.

So as we enter 2026, let’s remember to work with our brain’s natural learning system: Frame your goals positively, break them into manageable steps, and celebrate small wins along the way.