With technological advancements and an aging population, there is growing interest in delivering interventions at home. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Cognitive Remediation (CR) as well as Cognitive Training (CT) have been widely studied, but mainly in laboratories or hospitals. Thus, the objectives of this review are to examine feasibility and the interventions components to support the domiciliary administration of tDCS and CR. We performed a systematic search of electronic databases, websites and reference lists of included articles from the first date available until October 31, 2018. Articles included had to meet the following criteria: original work published in English using human subjects, majority of tDCS or CR intervention administered remotely. A total of 39 studies were identified (16 tDCS, 23 CR/CT, 5 using both tDCS & CT). Four studies were single case studies and two were multiple case studies. The remaining 33 studies had a range of 9–135 participants. Five tDCS and nine CR/CT studies were double blind randomized controlled trials. Most studies focused on schizophrenia (8/39) and multiple sclerosis (8/39). Literature examined suggests the feasibility of delivering tDCS or CR/CT remotely with the support of information and communication technologies.
Citation: Gough N, Brkan L, Subramaniam P, Chiuccariello L, De Petrillo A, Mulsant BH, et al. (2020) Feasibility of remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation and cognitive remediation: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0223029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223029
Editor: Tifei Yuan, Shanghai Mental Health Center, CHINA
Received: September 10, 2019; Accepted: January 8, 2020; Published: February 24, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Gough et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This research was partially funded by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Foundation.
Competing interests: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Dr. Bowie received grants from Pfizer, Lundbeck, and Takeda; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, and Pfizer; and in-kind research accounts from Scientific Brain Training Pro. Dr. Mulsant Mulsant currently receives research support from Brain Canada, CIHR, the CAMH Foundation, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the US NIH, Eli Lilly (medications for a NIH-funded clinical trial), Pfizer (medications for a NIH-funded clinical trial), Capital Solution Design LLC (software used in a study founded by CAMH Foundation), and HAPPYneuron (software used in a study founded by Brain Canada). He has also received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb (medications for a NIH-funded clinical trial) and Pfizer/Wyeth (medications for a NIH-funded clinical trial). He directly own stocks of General Electric (less than $5,000). Dr. Rajji has received research support from Brain Canada, Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, BrightFocus Foundation, Canada Foundation for Innovation, Canada Research Chair, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation, National Institutes of Health, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, and the Weston Brain Institute. Dr. Rajji also received in-kind equipment support for an investigator-initiated study from Magstim, and in-kind research accounts from Scientific Brain Training Pro. Other authors have nothing to declare.
Currently, 47 million people worldwide suffer from dementia, with nearly 10 million new cases each year, making it the 7th global leading cause of death . Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD) represents a growing health concern and contributing to 60–70% of dementia cases worldwide . Given the growing prevalence rate of AD, preventative interventions and treatments that target individuals on a population level are crucial.
There are limited effective treatments available for AD, highlighting the necessity for preventative options. Recent research on preventative measures has focused on interventions that target brain neuroplasticity and cognitive reserve [3, 4] due to observed maladaptive neuroplastic changes in various neuropsychiatric diseases . Such changes are also visible in AD, whereby deficits in cognition, may be related to disruptions in the connections among neurons and neuronal networks . Therefore, inhibiting these pathological changes and enhancing neuroplasticity may be beneficial for preventing or delaying the onset of AD and enhancing cognition . Two interventions that have the potential of enhancing neuroplasticity and can be delivered remotely, offering a scalable preventative effect, are transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cognitive remediation (CR) [6, 4].
CR has been shown in several trials that it could enhance cognition in healthy individuals and in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a clinical state that typically precedes AD [7–9]. Enhancing cognition in MCI is a promising strategy towards AD prevention . Thus, efforts to optimize the efficacy of CR using synergistically acting interventions are highly needed. tDCS is an ideal intervention to be combined with CR because of its ease of use and portability to be delivered, for example, during CR, and because of its posited mechanism of action which would be complementary and possibly synergistic to CR as described above. Hence, in this review, we focused on the studies that combined CR with tDCS.
tDCS is a non-invasive brain stimulation that can be safely administered to awake outpatients and is thought to shift the resting membrane potential with a low intensity electrical current (e.g., 2 mA). This shift increases motor cortical excitability with anodal stimulation and suppresses it with cathodal stimulation . However, this dichotomy is less consistent in non-motor cortical area . tDCS has the potential to reduce symptoms of cognitive decline and enhance cognition and rehabilitation in neuropsychiatric diseases [4, 13], including mild AD [14–16], through the modulation of neuronal activity and neuroplasticity [4, 11]. Unlike other non-invasive brain stimulation devices, tDCS equipment is readily transportable, making it a viable population-level intervention, and an option for patients with AD who need remote assistance.
CR programs also offer a way of improving neurocognitive abilities by inducing functional changes within the brain . In CR, patients engage in computerized cognitive exercises and, with the help of a therapist, are encouraged to utilize their metacognition in order to identify and modify their problem-solving techniques . CR has been shown to improve cognition in schizophrenia , bipolar disorder [19, 20], alcohol dependence , and major depression [6, 22, 64]. CR training programs are available online and therefore can be easily accessed from home.
tDCS is thought to alter cortical excitability resulting in more or less responsiveness to another intervention delivered concomitantly. As such, combining CR with tDCS could result in optimizing the effects of CR by priming the targeted cortical areas and, in turn, enhancing their response to CR. This is consistent with empirical evidence in healthy individuals .
Although a number of studies have examined the tolerability and efficacy of home-based, remotely-supervised tDCS and cognitive training in order to determine viability [24–26], no study to date has examined the combination of tDCS and CR delivered remotely as preventative measures for dementia. The current review intends to summarize existing literature on remote delivery of tDCS and CR/CT. Insight into the current research findings will allow for future determination of the potential usefulness of these two techniques to act as preventative treatment options for dementia on a population level.
PubMed, Ovid, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched focusing on studies from the first date available to October, 31 2018 for tDCS and CR/CT at-home studies. The literature search was divided into 2 categories:
tDCS at-home studies.
Titles and abstracts for the following Medical Subject Headings (MesH) terms and keywords were searched: (transcranial direct current stimulation or tDCS) in combination with “at-home” OR “home-based” OR “remotely supervised” OR “home treatment” OR “telemedicine” OR “self-administered.”
Cognitive training and cognitive remediation at-home studies.
Titles and abstracts for the following MesH terms and keywords were searched: cognitive remediation or cognitive training in combination with “at-home” OR “home-based” OR “remotely supervised” OR “home treatment” OR “telemedicine” OR “self-administered.”
The rationale for searching for both CT and CR is the following: CT and CR are treatments that aim to improve cognition. In CT, participants typically engage with computer training exercises that use drill and practice to stimulate neuroplasticity. CT involves a set of tasks that focus on cognitive functions but CT does not include other aspects utilized in CR. CR is a behavioral intervention that utilizes a combination of drill and practice exercises, strategy contemplation, cognitive transfer as well as applying strategies to real-world situations. CR builds on CT with additional techniques such as monitoring and development of problem-solving strategies and considering how cognitive skills and strategies generalize to daily life. While both show efficacy for enhancing cognition, CR is more likely to result in changes in everyday functioning. CR, however, has not been utilized in studies targeting cognition remotely as often as CT. We found that by including studies utilizing CT, we would be able to get a better understanding of how these studies delivered this intervention remotely. This learning could then be applied and adapted to future studies looking at delivering CR remotely.
tDCS at-home studies.
The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) articles published in English; (2) original research with human participants, (3) home-based intervention. Excluded papers were: (1) articles reporting tDCS data from research settings, such as laboratories, hospitals, clinics, and research centers; (2) review, guideline and protocol papers without reporting original research; (3) articles that used animals as study subjects, (4) articles reporting do-it-yourself (DIY) tDCS use.
Cognitive training and cognitive remediation at-home studies.
The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) articles published in English; (2) original research with human participants; (3) home-based interventions. Excluded papers were: (1) articles reporting CR/CT data from research settings such as laboratories, nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, and research centers, (2) review, guideline and protocol papers without reporting original research.
Data extraction is illustrated in Figs 1 and 2. After filtering for inclusion and exclusion criteria and eliminating duplicates, 11 home-based tDCS papers, 23 home-based CT or CR papers, and 5 studies that discussed both home-based CT and tDCS were included from this systematic multiple database search in the current review.
A total of 39 publications met the inclusion criteria for this review. Out of the 39 identified publications, two studies were single case studies and two were multiple case studies, one involving six participants and the other involving four participants. The remaining 33 published articles reported on a sample size range of 9–135 participants. Studies were published between the years of 1995–2018, and targeted multiple diagnoses including but not limited to: multiple sclerosis [24–26, 32–34, 51], Parkinson’s disease [26, 36, 49], brain injury [50, 58, 60], and schizophrenia [35, 43, 45, 52, 54, 55, 57, 61]. Only three papers [27–29] and one case study  were published with AD as the target population, with an additional study targeting mild vascular dementia . Studies examined in this systematic search included both males and females with a noted age range of 7.77 (standard deviation: 1.62) to 94 years of age.
Remote tDCS research published to date
There were 16 studies total that met the inclusion criteria. Studies targeted a range of symptoms and disorders, but most research focused on multiple sclerosis [25, 26, 32–34], schizophrenia , Parkinson’s disease [26, 36] and dementia [30, 31]. Symptoms and disorders are illustrated in Table 1.
Of the 16 tDCS studies reviewed, five were double blind randomized controlled trials [26, 33, 37–39], two were single blind randomized sham controlled trials [31, 40], two were pilot studies [25, 34], two featured a randomized double-blind cross-over design [22, 41], two were open label studies [33, 36], one was a multiple case study with four participants  and two were single case studies [30, 35]. See Table 1 for details.
There was high variability in the sample size and age of participants across studies. The ages of participants ranged from 17 to 86. The number of participants in each study ranged from 1 to 45, with an average of 19.63 (SD 12.02) participants (see Table 1 for details).
tDCS stimulation was administered for 20 minutes per session in all studies except three [30, 35, 39]. The current used for the stimulation ranged between 1 to 3mA, with 12 studies using either 1.5mA or 2mA. Administration time and the amount of current used for each study is listed in Table 1.
Participants either self-administered tDCS (n = 4/16 studies) [22, 38–40], administered tDCS with the help of an aide or study partner (n = 6/16 studies) [25, 30, 31, 35, 37, 41], or could choose what they preferred . Five studies encouraged self-administration, but used a proxy or caregiver if further assistance was required [26, 32–34, 36] (see Table 1 for details).
The most common electrode placement was the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex setup (DLPFC), where the anodal electrode was placed over the left DLPFC, and the cathodal electrode over the right DLPFC or temporal lobe (n = 11/16 studies) [26, 27, 32–36, 38, 39, 41, 42]. Furthermore, the majority of studies reviewed utilized tDCS head gear for simple and consistent electrode placement each session (n = 11/16 studies) [25, 26, 32–36, 38–40, 42] (see Table 1 for details).
The number of sessions administered varied across studies with participants receiving an average of 15.17 (SD = 12.36) tDCS sessions, ranging between 4 to 60 sessions for studies lasting less than four months. Within longer running studies, one study involved 8 months of daily tDCS sessions , and another study followed a participant for three years receiving 1–2 daily treatments, with tDCS sessions still ongoing at the time of publication  (see Table 1 for details).
Training and safety measures.
Although the majority of studies employed tDCS training at the baseline testing visit or during the first session at the research center (n = 12/16 studies) [22, 25, 26, 32–34, 36–39, 41, 42], the length, intensity and nature of training varied across research. In most cases training sessions consisted of an instructional video, hands-on tDCS coaching and monitoring by a study technician [26, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42], troubleshooting techniques [26, 34, 39, 41, 42], as well as an assessment of the participant’s ability to replicate the procedures competently at home [26, 38–42]. Training also incorporated safety assessments, including tolerability testing at the initial clinic visit [25, 26, 32–34, 36, 39, 42] (see Table 2 for details on training).
Most studies implemented a number of safety measures in order to ensure safe and controlled use of the tDCS device. This included tDCS devices that were programmed to allow for a minimum of 12 hours between sessions , and devices that released a single session of stimulation after receiving a one-time unlock code [25, 26, 32–34, 36, 39, 42]. Additional safety measures included machines with password protected settings , anode and cathode sponges that had opposite male and female connections , as well as tDCS machines that measured and displayed contact quality prior to the start of stimulation [25, 26, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42].
All studies (n = 16 studies) used some form of fidelity monitoring including real-time monitoring by means of video-conferencing (n = 8/16 studies) [25, 26, 32–34, 36, 39, 42], remote control software (n = 7/16 studies) [25, 26, 32–34, 36, 42], daily online check-ins (n = 1/16 studies) , treatment diaries (n = 4/16 studies) [22, 38, 39, 41], webcam or Facetime sessions (n = 1/16 studies)  and weekly home visits (n = 1/16) . See Table 2 breakdowns of how each study engaged in fidelity monitoring.
Effectiveness of tDCS treatment.
Overall, all studies reviewed reported significant improvement in physical or mental symptoms, such as a reduction in fatigue [25, 33] and pain [22, 25], improved pain management , improved anxiety and dizziness ratings , improvements in affect , motor function , rocking perception, , psychosocial functioning  and moderate improvements in consciousness . Further significant improvements were noted in areas of cognition, including processing speed [25, 31], visual recall , attention and response variability composites  as well as stabilization of cognitive decline for AD patients, with some improvement in memory function also noted .
Feasibility of remote tDCS.
Many studies supported the feasibility of remotely supervised tDCS [25, 26, 32, 36, 39, 41, 42] and found it to be well tolerated [22, 25, 36, 39, 41], easy to use and safe [38, 39]. High compliance rates (80% or higher) were noted in nine studies [32, 36, 39, 41, 43–47]. Only one study noted generally poor compliance rates and a high dropout rate , and two other studies noted participants training less than desired , or not always following the protocol . The remaining four studies did not discuss compliance rates.
Five studies addressed the combination of remotely delivered tDCS and cognitive training [25, 26, 32, 33, 36]. No additional training or supervision by study staff was discussed with the incorporation of cognitive training into the study protocol.
Remote cognitive remediation and cognitive training research published to date
There were 24 studies total that met the inclusion criteria. There was wide variability in the populations targeted including, but not limited to, schizophrenia [43, 52, 54, 55, 57, 61] and individuals who were at risk of developing psychosis , multiple sclerosis [24, 26, 51], dementia [27–29], Parkinson’s disease [26, 49], and brain injury [50, 58] (see Table 3 for details).
Among the 24 studies reviewed, there were nine double blind, randomized controlled trials [24, 26–28, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52], one randomized waitlist controlled trial study , one multicenter randomized control trial , three pilot studies [47, 54, 55], one single group study , one within subject study , one controlled experimental design , one follow-up single group design study , one case control study , one longitudinal within-group design study , one feasibility study , one multiple case study , and two single case studies [50, 61].
The age range and sample size varied, with participants ranging in age from 7 to 75. The number of participants in each study ranged from 1 to 135, with an average of number of 41.1 (SD = 35.55) participants.
There was high variability in the administration of CR and CT. The duration of engagement, with one exception , ranged from 20 minutes per day to two hours per day, with a frequency of two to seven days per week.
There was some variability in the type of CR or CT delivered, as well as the mode of delivery. Of the 24 studies examined, seven studies utilized principles of cognitive remediation [28, 29, 44, 48, 58, 60, 61], whereas the other 17 studies utilized cognitive training exclusively. Participants completed tasks individually (n = 14/24 studies) [24, 26, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54–59], or with a partner (n = 10/24 studies) [27–29, 43, 46, 47, 50, 53, 60, 61]. Studies used printed materials (n = 7/24 studies) [27–29, 48, 50, 60, 61] and internet-based and/or computer-based programs (n = 18/24 studies) [24, 26, 43–49, 51, 59] to deliver the intervention to participants. Only five studies did not use any form of computerized program [27, 29, 50, 60]. Software also varied quite extensively in studies that utilized a computer. Posit Science was used in six different studies [24, 43, 45, 51, 52, 56], however, the program varied in its usage and utility.
Training and guidance.
Participant training ranged in duration and intensity and consisted of no training and self-guided treatment (n = 4/24) [44, 47, 51, 58], having one session of training in a group or alone (n = 6/24) [26, 43, 46, 48, 53, 54], weekly training , observational training [27, 28, 59] or training on an as-needed basis . Training generally involved printed instruction sheets and recommended strategies for daily activities, which were explained prior to starting the intervention , education surrounding the human brain, cognition and how cognition affects daily functioning [43, 48], educational handbooks, worksheets and information about compensatory strategies , as well as the protocol for the computer software . Only three studies discussed initial training, whereby training was conducted at the study center during the first session [48, 54] for two hours  (see Table 4 for details on training and guidance for each study).
Most research provided ongoing monitoring and support by a study technician (n = 20/24 studies) [24, 26, 29, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54–60]. Software programs that allowed for monitoring/real time feedback were utilized in most studies (n = 14/24) [24, 26, 44–52, 55, 56, 60]. Check-ins were also quite common (n = 16/24 studies) [24, 26, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54–59], and were completed primarily through phone or email at least once a week (n = 7/24) [24, 43, 45, 46, 51, 55, 57]. Other studies used video conferencing multiple times a week , or had study staff meet with participants once a week either at home [60, 61] or in a study clinic . Additional tools included: instructional manuals [29, 30, 45, 60, 61], participant logs , checklists , and training schedules [51, 53, 61].
Effectiveness of remote delivery of cognitive remediation and cognitive training.
Overall, all remote cognitive remediation and cognitive training studies reviewed showed a positive effect in most of the parameters measured following the remote intervention. Specifically, significant cognitive improvements were found for individuals with MS [24, 51], chronic fatigue syndrome , 22q11 Deletion Syndrome , schizophrenia [40–42, 61], HIV , TBI , acquired brain injury , and AD . Areas of cognition that were improved following these interventions include, but are not limited to, global cognition (n = 9/24) [24, 27, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 57, 61], processing speed (n = 3/24) [55, 56, 59], working memory (n = 3/24) [28, 50, 59], visual recognition (n = 1/24) , verbal memory (n = 2/24) [52, 57], word fluency (n = 3/24) [27, 28, 50], and executive functioning skills (n = 5/24) [28, 52, 53, 57, 59]. Only one study did not find improvements in cognition, however, they did find statistically significant improvements within activities of daily living performance for stroke patients with cognitive impairments . Many studies found that improvements in areas of cognition persisted at least 3–9 months post-intervention (n = 5/24) [27, 46, 47, 49, 57]. Improvements in cognition were also found to be positively correlated with quality of life (n = 3/24) [48, 50, 57].
Feasibility of remote cognitive training and cognitive remediation.
Most research reported remote, home-based cognitive remediation and cognitive training programs to be feasible, useful and well accepted for people with MS [24, 51], schizophrenia [54, 61], epilepsy , and those with brain damage [50, 58]. Participants indicated that the training was beneficial, convenient , and enjoyable [48, 54], and supported the benefit of remote CR using spousal caregivers for people with dementia . Only one study noted that some participants felt the cognitive training instructions were confusing .
The current literature suggests that both remotely administered tDCS and CR are feasible and possibly effective in targeting a number of cognitive functions in various patient populations. Proper training in equipment use and regular monitoring of procedures appear crucial for study compliance and feasibility. However, the field still needs to identify what components of both CR and tDCS administration are needed to be implemented in studying AD population or populations at risk for developing AD, e.g. patients with MCI.
Based on the literature reviewed, the recommendations for future trials targeting cognitive decline in the AD population would include ensuring proper training and regular monitoring. This means dedicating adequate training time at the initial clinic visit or arranging in-home training in order to ensure hands-on coaching around tDCS application and proper use of the device. Explanation and demonstration of troubleshooting techniques could be helpful to include as part of the training procedure, including rectification techniques to manage pain and discomfort.
Considering the potential difficulty in tDCS self-administration with a predominantly elderly population, machine safety features and a customized headset could be useful. If a headset is not used, study partners or proxies can be utilized for tDCS application, with an anode and cathode that are clearly distinguishable to avoid interchangeability.
Video-monitoring as well as online and in-person check-ins could be beneficial ways for ensuring fidelity monitoring for a protocol targeting cognitive decline in the AD population. It is recommended that participants in future studies be overseen once every week, or every two weeks, through video conferencing or home visits by study staff. If tDCS stimulation is combined with an online cognitive training program, monitoring could also include remote control software. In addition, it is recommended that participants keep a log of sessions completed, either digitally or manually, in order to ensure protocol adherence.
The effectiveness of tDCS was dose-dependent, where more sessions (20 vs 10) and an increase in current (2.0mA vs 1.5mA) resulted in a greater reduction in fatigue [33, 35]. This suggests that longer treatment periods and higher stimulation intensity are of greater benefit where at least 20 tDCS sessions with a current no lower than 2.0mA [24–26, 62] may be optimal. Future trials might want to consider these settings to ensure maximum benefit.
Ease of use may be a necessary factor to take into account for future trials in the AD population. Considering these patients already suffer from some cognitive decline and may be less experienced with computer software, a simpler computer program preinstalled by study staff and a longer training period might be preferred for tolerability. Additionally, having study staff engage in regular monitoring (i.e. regular phone calls, home visits or video conferencing) and using programs that ensure optimal cognitive challenge appear to be important components to consider for effectiveness and adherence.
Future trials may also want to consider utilizing exercises that target cognitive domains typically affected by AD related cognitive decline, such as memory, executive function, processing speed, attention, as well as reasoning and problem solving.
Moreover, continuously challenging cognition by finding an individualized optimal level of difficulty within the CR program used is an important aspect to consider for future trials targeting AD related cognitive decline. With the exception of four studies [29, 48, 54, 58], all research reviewed had cognitive exercises that adapted in difficulty level based on the participant’s performance. This self-adjusting feature may promote continued participant engagement and eliminate frustration brought about by seemingly unachievable difficulty parameters within the exercises.
Strategy contemplation [44, 48, 58] and cognitive transfer [28, 48, 58, 60] are also important components to consider within the study design, whereby participants are asked to identify skills and strategies utilized in the exercises and apply them to real-world situations. This addition encourages cognitive activation and the utilization of adaptive problem-solving strategies in daily scenarios. To further cognitive transfer, some CR interventions encourage participants to seek out cognitively challenging activities in everyday life, and engage in activities that are cognitively stimulating outside of the program, however, this was not clearly visible in any of the studies reviewed. These add-on techniques could be particularly helpful in slowing cognitive decline and facilitating improvement in every day functioning and daily living within the AD population.
A major limitation of this systematic review is that out of 39 studies reviewed, only four presented AD as the disease targeted. More specifically, within the cluster of at-home tDCS literature reviewed, only one case study used the intervention as a means to slow cognitive decline in an individual with early onset AD . Similarly, within the group of at-home CR articles reviewed, one RCT targeted patients with AD , and one targeted individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and AD . A third article targeting AD utilized cognitive training rather than cognitive remediation . This makes it difficult to make inferences and recommendations based on population specific difficulties encountered in past studies that could be improved upon in future studies.
Only six studies utilized discussion guided cognitive remediation (rather than cognitive training) as the observed intervention, with aspects of strategy awareness  and discussion [29, 44, 48, 58] visible in five out of six CR studies reviewed, and the addition of cognitive transfer visible in 4 out of 6 [28, 48, 58, 60]. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness and value of these add-on techniques within a trial targeting patients at-risk for developing AD. Furthermore, as different cognitive measures were used in each of the studies, it is difficult to determine if one method was more effective over another.
With millions of individuals being diagnosed with AD worldwide each year, and the accompanying maladaptive neuroplastic changes leading to worsening cognition, CR and tDCS are promising preventive interventions and treatments that can target individuals on a population level. Both CR and tDCS are effective interventions for improving cognition [6, 13–16, 18–21] and have the benefit of being portable.
CR enhances frontal lobe activation and neuroplasticity  and it has been shown to improve cognition in depression [6, 13, 64]. CR’s effectiveness relates to its inclusion of performance adapting software as well as strategy-based learning and bridging discussions, which typically occur in a group environment. However, with current technological advances, these components of CR can be achieved remotely.
tDCS modulates neuronal activity and enhances neuroplasticity [4,11] and has been shown to improve cognition in mild AD [14–16]. In other studies, participants must be present at a treatment centre in order to receive CR, tDCS or both from trained study staff. However, this can be costly and laborious for participants, and has the potential of being unfeasible for individuals with restricted mobility, vocational obligations, and lengthy travel times.
Future research may like to further consider additional measures that were not fully assessed throughout the literature examined, such as baseline ratings of reward (which may be positively associated with cognitive gains) and inclusion of a partner or caregiver. Investigating the feasibility of remotely delivering these interventions with other cohorts, such as individuals with mild AD, or those at risk of developing AD, who could benefit from at-home tDCS, CR or both would also be important considerations for prospective trials.
- 1. Organization, W. H. (2017). The Top 10 Causes of Death. [cited 2017 December 12]; http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/.
- 2. Organization, W. H. (2017). Dementia. [cited 2017 December 12]; http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs362/en/.
- 3. Livingston G., Sommerlad A., Orgeta V., Costafreda S. G., Huntley J., Ames D., et al. Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care. The Lancet, 2017. 390(10113), 2673–2734.
- 4. Bowie C. R., Gupta M., Holshausen K., Jokic R., Best M., & Milev R. (2013). Cognitive remediation for treatment resistant depression: Effects on cognition and functioning and the role of online homework. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 201(8), 680–685. pmid:23896849
- 5. Kuo M.-F., Paulus W., & Nitsche M. A. (2014). Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases. NeuroImage, 85, 948–960. pmid:23747962
- 6. Rajji T. K. (2018). Impaired brain plasticity as a potential therapeutic target for treatment and prevention of dementia. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, 23(1), 21–28. pmid:30451545
- 7. Karssemeijer E. A. J., Aaronson J., Bossers W. J., Smits T., Rikkert M. G., & Kessels R. P. (2017). Positive effects of combined cognitive and physical exercise training on cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 40, 75–83. pmid:28912076
- 8. Maffei L., Picano E., Andreassi M. G., Angelucci A., Baldacci F., Baroncelli L., et al. (2017). Randomized trial on the effects of a combined physical/cognitive training in aged MCI subjects: The Train the Brain study. Scientific Reports, 7(1). pmid:28045051
- 9. Sherman D. S., Mauser J., Nuno M., & Sherzai D. (2017). The Efficacy of Cognitive Intervention in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI): a Meta-Analysis of Outcomes on Neuropsychological Measures. Neuropsychology Review, 27(4), 440–484. pmid:29282641
- 10. Rajji T. K. (2019). Transcranial Magnetic and Electrical Stimulation in Alzheimers Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 106(4), 776–780. pmid:31321766
- 11. Ferrucci R., Mameli F., Guidi I., Mrakic-Sposta S., Vergari M., Marceglia S., et al. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves recognition memory in Alzheimer disease. Neurology, 71(7), 493–498. pmid:18525028
- 12. Jacobson L., Koslowsky M., & Lavidor M. (2011). tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review. Experimental Brain Research, 216(1), 1–10. pmid:21989847
- 13. Naismith S. L., Redoblado-Hodge M. A., Lewis S. J., Scott E. M., & Hickie I. B. (2010). Cognitive training in affective disorders improves memory: A preliminary study using the NEAR approach. Journal of Affective Disorders, 121(3), 258–262. pmid:19616856
- 14. Boggio P. S., Khoury L. P., Martins D. C. S., Martins O. E. M. S., Macedo E. C. D., & Fregni F. (2008). Temporal cortex direct current stimulation enhances performance on a visual recognition memory task in Alzheimer disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 80(4), 444–447. pmid:18977813
- 15. Boggio P. S., Ferrucci R., Mameli F., Martins D., Martins O., Vergari M., et al. (2012). Prolonged visual memory enhancement after direct current stimulation in Alzheimers disease. Brain Stimulation, 5(3), 223–230. pmid:21840288
- 16. Grill J. D., & Karlawish J. (2010). Addressing the challenges to successful recruitment and retention in Alzheimers disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Research & Therapy, 2(6), 34. pmid:21172069
- 17. Bowie C. (n.d.). Cognitive remediation for major depressive disorder. In Cognitive impairment in major depressive disorder: Clinical relevance, biological substrates, and treatment opportunities (pp. 306–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139860567.022
- 18. Wykes T., Huddy V., Cellard C., Mcgurk S. R., & Czobor P. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Remediation for Schizophrenia: Methodology and Effect Sizes. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(5), 472–485. pmid:21406461
- 19. Deckersbach T., Nierenberg A. A., Kessler R., Lund H. G., Ametrano R. M., Sachs G., … et al. (2010). RESEARCH: Cognitive Rehabilitation for Bipolar Disorder: An Open Trial for Employed Patients with Residual Depressive Symptoms. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 16(5), 298–307. pmid:19895584
- 20. Meusel L. A., McKinnon M., Hall G., & MacQueen G. M. (2009). Evidence for sustained improvement in memory deficits following computer-assisted cognitive remediation in patients with a mood disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 65(8)
- 21. Rupp C. I., Kemmler G., Kurz M., Hinterhuber H., & Fleischhacker W. W. (2012). Cognitive Remediation Therapy During Treatment for Alcohol Dependence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(4), 625–634. pmid:22630801
- 22. Hagenacker T., Bude V., Naegel S., Holle D., Katsarava Z., Diener H.-C., et al. (2014). Patient-conducted anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex alleviates pain in trigeminal neuralgia. The Journal of Headache and Pain, 15(1).
- 23. Park S.-H., Seo J.-H., Kim Y.-H., & Ko M.-H. (2014). Long-term effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with computer-assisted cognitive training in healthy older adults. NeuroReport, 25(2), 122–126. pmid:24176927
- 24. Charvet L., Shaw M., Haider L., Melville P., & Krupp L. (2015). Remotely-delivered cognitive remediation in multiple sclerosis (MS): protocol and results from a pilot study. Multiple Sclerosis Journal—Experimental, Translational and Clinical, 1, 205521731560962. pmid:28607707
- 25. Kasschau M., Reisner J., Sherman K., Bikson M., Datta A., & Charvet L. E. (2016). Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Is Feasible for Remotely Supervised Home Delivery in Multiple Sclerosis. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 19(8), 824–831. pmid:27089545
- 26. Shaw M. T., Kasschau M., Dobbs B., Pawlak N., Pau W., Sherman K., et al. (2017). Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: An Update on Safety and Tolerability. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (128), 1–8. pmid:29053684
- 27. Quayhagen M. P., Quayhagen M., Corbeil R. R., Roth P. A., & Rodgers J. A. (1995). A Dyadic Remediation Program for Care Recipients with Dementia. Nursing Research, 44(3).
- 28. Quayhagen M. P., & Quayhagen M. (2001). Testing of a cognitive stimulation intervention for dementia caregiving dyads. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 11(3–4), 319–332.
- 29. Regan B., Wells Y., Farrow M., Ohalloran P., & Workman B. (2017). MAXCOG—Maximizing Cognition: A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Efficacy of Goal-Oriented Cognitive Rehabilitation for People with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Early Alzheimer Disease. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25(3), 258–269. pmid:28034509
- 30. Bystad M., Rasmussen I. D., Grønli O., & Aslaksen P. M. (2017). Can 8 months of daily tDCS application slow the cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease? A case study. Neurocase, 23(2), 146–148. pmid:28485663
- 31. André S., Heinrich S., Kayser F., Menzler K., Kesselring J., Khader P. H., et al. (2016). At-home tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves visual short-term memory in mild vascular dementia. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 369, 185–190. pmid:27653887
- 32. Charvet L., Shaw M., Dobbs B., Frontario A., Sherman K., Bikson M., et al. (2017). Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Increases the Benefit of At-Home Cognitive Training in Multiple Sclerosis. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 21(4), 383–389. pmid:28225155
- 33. Charvet L. E., Dobbs B., Shaw M. T., Bikson M., Datta A., & Krupp L. B. (2017). Remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: Results from a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 24(13), 1760–1769. pmid:28937310
- 34. Kasschau M., Sherman K., Haider L., Frontario A., Shaw M., Datta A., et al. (2015). A Protocol for the Use of Remotely-Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Journal of Visualized Experiments, (106). pmid:26780383
- 35. Andrade C. (2013). Once- to Twice-Daily, 3-Year Domiciliary Maintenance Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Severe, Disabling, Clozapine-Refractory Continuous Auditory Hallucinations in Schizophrenia. The Journal of ECT, 29(3), 239–242. pmid:23377748
- 36. Agarwal S., Pawlak N., Cucca A., Sharma K., Dobbs B., Shaw M., et al. (2018). Remotely-supervised transcranial direct current stimulation paired with cognitive training in Parkinson’s disease: An open-label study. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 57, 51–57. pmid:30193898
- 37. Mortensen J., Figlewski K., & Andersen H. (2015). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and home-based occupational therapy for upper limb motor impairment following intracerebral hemorrhage: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(7), 637–643. pmid:26079636
- 38. Hyvärinen P., Mäkitie A., & Aarnisalo A. A. (2016). Self-Administered Domiciliary tDCS Treatment for Tinnitus: A Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Study. Plos One, 11(4). pmid:27124116
- 39. Carvalho F., Brietzke A. P., Gasparin A., Santos F. P. D., Vercelino R., Ballester R. F., et al. (2018). Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Device Development: An Updated Protocol Used at Home in Healthy Subjects and Fibromyalgia Patients. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (137). pmid:30059026
- 40. Cha Y.-H., Urbano D., & Pariseau N. (2016). Randomized Single Blind Sham Controlled Trial of Adjunctive Home-Based tDCS after rTMS for Mal De Debarquement Syndrome: Safety, Efficacy, and Participant Satisfaction Assessment. Brain Stimulation, 9(4), 537–544. pmid:27117283
- 41. Martens G., Lejeune N., Obrien A. T., Fregni F., Martial C., Wannez S., et al. (2018). Randomized controlled trial of home-based 4-week tDCS in chronic minimally conscious state. Brain Stimulation, 11(5), 982–990. pmid:29759943
- 42. Riggs A., Patel V., Paneri B., Portenoy R. K., Bikson M., & Knotkova H. (2018). At-Home Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) With Telehealth Support for Symptom Control in Chronically-Ill Patients With Multiple Symptoms. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12. pmid:29872381
- 43. Ventura J., Wilson S. A., Wood R. C., & Hellemann G. S. (2013). Cognitive training at home in schizophrenia is feasible. Schizophrenia Research, 143(2–3), 397–398. pmid:23290608
- 44. Mariano M. A., Tang K., Kurtz M., & Kates W. R. (2015). Cognitive remediation for adolescents with 22q11 deletion syndrome (22q11DS): A preliminary study examining effectiveness, feasibility, and fidelity of a hybrid strategy, remote and computer-based intervention. Schizophrenia Research, 166(1–3), 283–289. pmid:26044111
- 45. Loewy R., Fisher M., Schlosser D. A., Biagianti B., Stuart B., Mathalon D. H., et al. (2016). Intensive Auditory Cognitive Training Improves Verbal Memory in Adolescents and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(suppl 1). pmid:26903238
- 46. Kirk H. E., Gray K. M., Ellis K., Taffe J., & Cornish K. M. (2016). Computerised attention training for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(12), 1380–1389. pmid:27550746
- 47. Anguera J. A., Brandes-Aitken A. N., Antovich A. D., Rolle C. E., Desai S. S., & Marco E. J. (2017). A pilot study to determine the feasibility of enhancing cognitive abilities in children with sensory processing dysfunction. Plos One, 12(4). pmid:28380008
- 48. Caller T. A., Ferguson R. J., Roth R. M., Secore K. L., Alexandre F. P., Zhao W.,et al. (2016). A cognitive behavioral intervention (HOBSCOTCH) improves quality of life and attention in epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 57, 111–117. pmid:26943948
- 49. Milman U., Atias H., Weiss A., Mirelman A., & Hausdorff J. M. (2014). Can Cognitive Remediation Improve Mobility in Patients with Parkinsons Disease? Findings from a 12 week Pilot Study. Journal of Parkinsons Disease, 4(1), 37–44. pmid:24322063
- 50. Mohanty M., & Gupta S. K. (2013). Home based neuropsychological rehabilitation in severe traumatic brain injury: a case report. Annals of Neurosciences, 20(1), 31–35. pmid:25206008
- 51. Charvet L. E., Yang J., Shaw M. T., Sherman K., Haider L., Xu J., et al. (2017). Cognitive function in multiple sclerosis improves with telerehabilitation: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Plos One, 12(5). pmid:28493924
- 52. Fisher M., Loewy R., Carter C., Lee A., Ragland J. D., Niendam T., et al. (2014). Neuroplasticity-Based Auditory Training Via Laptop Computer Improves Cognition in Young Individuals With Recent Onset Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41(1), 250–258. pmid:24444862
- 53. Johnstone S. J., Roodenrys S. J., Johnson K., Bonfield R., & Bennett S. J. (2017). Game-based combined cognitive and neurofeedback training using Focus Pocus reduces symptom severity in children with diagnosed AD/HD and subclinical AD/HD. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 116, 32–44. pmid:28257875
- 54. Vázquez-Campo M., Maroño Y., Lahera G., Mateos R., & García-Caballero A. (2016). e-Motional Training®: Pilot study on a novel online training program on social cognition for patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research: Cognition, 4, 10–17. pmid:28740808
- 55. Nahum M., Fisher M., Loewy R., Poelke G., Ventura J., Nuechterlein K. H., et al (2014). A novel, online social cognitive training program for young adults with schizophrenia: A pilot study. Schizophrenia Research: Cognition, 1(1). pmid:25267937
- 56. Cody S. L., Fazeli P. L., & Vance D. E. (2015). Feasibility of a Home-Based Speed of Processing Training Program in Middle-Aged and Older Adults With HIV. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 47(4), 247–254. pmid:26153789
- 57. Fisher M., Holland C., Merzenich M. M., & Vinogradov S. (2009). Using Neuroplasticity-Based Auditory Training to Improve Verbal Memory in Schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(7), 805–811. pmid:19448187
- 58. Boman I.-L., Lindstedt M., Hemmingsson H., & Bartfai A. (2004). Cognitive training in home environment. Brain Injury, 18(10), 985–995. pmid:15370898
- 59. McBride R. L., Horsfield S., Sandler C. X., Cassar J., Casson S., Cvejic E., et al. (2017). Cognitive remediation training improves performance in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychiatry Research, 257, 400–405. pmid:28830024
- 60. Pyun S.-B., Yang H., Lee S., Yook J., Kwon J., & Byun E.-M. (2009). A home programme for patients with cognitive dysfunction: A pilot study. Brain Injury, 23(7–8), 686–692. pmid:19557572
- 61. Rajeswaran J., Taksal A., & Jain S. (2017). Rehabilitation in schizophrenia: A brain-behavior and psychosocial persperctive. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 39(6), 797. pmid:29284815
- 62. Charvet L. E., Kasschau M., Datta A., Knotkova H., Stevens M. C., Alonzo A., et al. (2015). Remotely-supervised transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for clinical trials: guidelines for technology and protocols. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9. pmid:25852494
- 63. Elgamal S., Mckinnon M. C., Ramakrishnan K., Joffe R. T., & Macqueen G. (2007). Successful computer-assisted cognitive remediation therapy in patients with unipolar depression: a proof of principle study. Psychological Medicine, 37(9), 1229–1238. pmid:17610766
- 64. Brunoni A. R., Nitsche M. A., Bolognini N., Bikson M., Wagner T., Merabet L., et al. (2012). Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and future directions. Brain Stimulation, 5(3), 175–195. pmid:22037126