Skip to main content
ISPRM 2026 Main banner
Final Program


Final Congress Guide

Therapeutics

1000 Section - Differential Effects of tDCS Intensities on Older Adults: Evidence from a Multi-Modal Evaluation System

Tuesday, May 19, 2026
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM PT

    Presenting Author/Autor expositor(s)

  • CQ

    Chenye Qiao, PhD

    PHD
    Beijing Rehabilitation Hospital, Capital Medical University
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

    • Co-Author(s)

  • SQ

    Shuyan Qie, PhD

    PhD
    BEIJING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL AFFILIATED TO CAPITAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

  • YW

    YIngpeng Wang, PhD

    Dr.
    Beijing Rehabilitation Hospital, Capital Medical University
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

  • cw

    congxiao wang, MD

    Dr.
    BEIJING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL AFFILIATED TO CAPITAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

  • YL

    Yingqi Li, MS

    Dr.
    Beijing Rehabilitation Hospital, Capital Medical University
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

  • HW

    Hujun Wang, MA

    Dr.
    BEIJING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL AFFILIATED TO CAPITAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

  • JW

    Jingxuan Wang, MD

    Dr.
    BEIJING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL AFFILIATED TO CAPITAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
    Beijing, Beijing, China (People's Republic)

Objectives : Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) holds promise for cognitive enhancement in older adults, yet the "dose-response" relationship remains ambiguous due to age-related anatomical barriers (e.g., cortical atrophy). Current parameter selection often lacks objective evidence. This study utilized a multi-modal assessment to systematically compare the differential effects of 1 mA versus 1.5 mA intensities on neurophysiology, behavior, and safety.

Design: Thirty healthy older adults participated in a randomized, within-subject crossover trial. Anodal tDCS was applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) at 1 mA and 1.5 mA (20 min). We employed a comprehensive framework: (1) Physiological: Dual-modal monitoring using electroencephalography (EEG) and functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) to capture neuro-electrical activity and hemodynamics, respectively; (2) Behavioral: High-load visuospatial memory and Go/No-Go tasks; (3) Safety: Subjective and objective monitoring.

Results:

The 1.5 mA protocol significantly outperformed the 1 mA condition. Physiologically, compared to marginal effects at 1 mA, the 1.5 mA stimulation significantly enhanced prefrontal Gamma band power and nonlinear complexity (EEG). Synchronous fNIRS data confirmed a specific, sustained rise in oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) and stronger functional connectivity, evidencing robust neurovascular coupling. Behaviorally, this central excitation translated into substantial benefits: participants exhibited significantly higher accuracy in visuospatial memory and improved inhibitory control in the Go/No-Go task under 1.5 mA (p < 0.05). Safety profiles were comparable, with no significant differences in adverse events.

Conclusion:

Evidence from this multi-modal system confirms that the 1.5 mA (20 min) protocol is superior to 1 mA for the aging brain. It effectively synchronizes central neurophysiological activation with cognitive performance enhancement while ensuring safety. These findings bridge the gap in understanding dose-response relationships, validating 1.5 mA as an optimal parameter for clinical interventions.