Long-term potentiation and long-term depression, long held as the principal means of producing lasting change in cerebral circuits, are easily induced in the hippocampus (Bliss & Lomo, 1973; Dudek & Bear, 1992) but are more difficult to produce in the cortex (Trepel & Racine, 1998). Induction of synaptic plasticity in the cortex requires multiple sessions of tetanising trains to be CCI-779 nmr effective and reflects the relative stability of neocortical circuits. While the mechanisms underlying the ability of tDCS to produce lasting neural changes in these circuits have not yet been fully established (see Stagg & Nitsche, 2011; Márquez-Ruiz et al.,

2012), the number of sessions required for recovery is probably due to tDCS overcoming cortical resistance to synaptic plasticity, a delay period in the accumulation of critical Inhibitor Library chemical structure neuromodulators or growth factors (e.g., brain-derived neurotrophic factor; Fritsch et al., 2010),

or both. Recovery was only observed to more peripherally located visual targets, and this finding may reflect a limited capacity of the tDCS to penetrate into the depths of the cortex. The targeted cortex is retinotopically organised: the representation of the contralateral peripheral visual field is located near the skull on the crest of each gyrus, and the neurons in the fundus of the sulcus represent central and pericentral locations (Palmer et al., 1978). The behavioral results, therefore, may reflect a selective reduction in activity or in the firing probability of the neurons that represent peripheral targets Carteolol HCl and that are located closer to the skull. The results also may reflect selective activation of neurons in this cortex whose somatodendritic or axonal axes is optimally oriented to the electric field (e.g., Bikson et al., 2004; Radman et al., 2009; Kabakov et al., 2012). The behavioral results

also indicate that the resting membrane potential of neurons near the depth of the sulcus, which correspond to central visual field locations (Palmer et al., 1978), may not be sufficiently modulated by tDCS to produce a behavioral change. In as much as functional alterations in these neurons are the basis for the recovery, this result runs counter to predictions of modeling studies that show a preferential effect of tDCS on neurons at the bases of sulci (Miranda et al., 2013). Moreover, the present results suggest that the tDCS-mediated reduction in activity also does not feed down to neurons in the depth of the sulcus through substantial intra-areal circuits demonstrated to fill this region (Norita et al., 1996). Further modeling of tDCS currents and biological study is required to provide a definitive answer to the mechanisms and the precise neuronal elements underlying the present results. It is notable that one animal did not respond to tDCS treatment. Examination of the lesion showed no identifiable differences in terms of size or extent of lesion.