OBJECTIVES: We have previously reported that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) delivered to the occipital cortex enhances visual functional recovery when combined with three months of computer-based rehabilitative training in patients with hemianopia. The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the temporal sequence of effects of tDCS on visual recovery as they appear over the course of training and across different indicators of visual function. METHODS: Primary objective outcome measures were 1) shifts in visual field border and 2) stimulus detection accuracy within the affected hemifield. These were compared between patients randomized to either vision restoration therapy (VRT) combined with active tDCS or VRT paired with sham tDCS. Training comprised two half-hour sessions, three times a week for three months. Primary outcome measures were collected at baseline (pretest), monthly interim intervals, and at posttest (three months). As secondary outcome measures, contrast sensitivity and reading performance were collected at pretest and posttest time points only. RESULTS: Active tDCS combined with VRT accelerated the recovery of stimulus detection as between-group differences appeared within the first month of training. In contrast, a shift in the visual field border was only evident at posttest (after three months of training). tDCS did not affect contrast sensitivity or reading performance. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that tDCS may differentially affect the magnitude and sequence of visual recovery in a manner that is task specific to the type of visual rehabilitative training strategy employed.
OBJECTIVES: We have previously reported that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) delivered to the occipital cortex enhances visual functional recovery when combined with three months of computer-based rehabilitative training in patients with hemianopia. The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the temporal sequence of effects of tDCS on visual recovery as they appear over the course of training and across different indicators of visual function. METHODS: Primary objective outcome measures were 1) shifts in visual field border and 2) stimulus detection accuracy within the affected hemifield. These were compared between patients randomized to either vision restoration therapy (VRT) combined with active tDCS or VRT paired with sham tDCS. Training comprised two half-hour sessions, three times a week for three months. Primary outcome measures were collected at baseline (pretest), monthly interim intervals, and at posttest (three months). As secondary outcome measures, contrast sensitivity and reading performance were collected at pretest and posttest time points only. RESULTS: Active tDCS combined with VRT accelerated the recovery of stimulus detection as between-group differences appeared within the first month of training. In contrast, a shift in the visual field border was only evident at posttest (after three months of training). tDCS did not affect contrast sensitivity or reading performance. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that tDCS may differentially affect the magnitude and sequence of visual recovery in a manner that is task specific to the type of visual rehabilitative training strategy employed.
Authors: Andrea Antal; Tamas Z Kincses; Michael A Nitsche; Orsolya Bartfai; Walter Paulus Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ela B Plow; Souzana N Obretenova; Felipe Fregni; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Lotfi B Merabet Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Ela B Plow; Souzana N Obretenova; Mark A Halko; Sigrid Kenkel; Mary Lou Jackson; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Lotfi B Merabet Journal: PM R Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Krystel R Huxlin; Tim Martin; Kristin Kelly; Meghan Riley; Deborah I Friedman; W Scott Burgin; Mary Hayhoe Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Elizabeth Heinrichs-Graham; Timothy J McDermott; Mackenzie S Mills; Nathan M Coolidge; Tony W Wilson Journal: Cortex Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 4.027
Authors: Thiago L Costa; Mirella Gualtieri; Mirella T S Barboni; Rafael K Katayama; Paulo S Boggio; Dora F Ventura Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: David A Cunningham; Nicole Varnerin; Andre Machado; Corin Bonnett; Daniel Janini; Sarah Roelle; Kelsey Potter-Baker; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Xiaofeng Wang; Guang Yue; Ela B Plow Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Daniel P Spiegel; Jinrong Li; Robert F Hess; Winston D Byblow; Daming Deng; Minbin Yu; Benjamin Thompson Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: M C Olma; R A Dargie; J R Behrens; A Kraft; K Irlbacher; M Fahle; S A Brandt Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Ela B Plow; David A Cunningham; Erik Beall; Stephen Jones; Alexandria Wyant; Corin Bonnett; Guang H Yue; Mark Lowe; Xiao-Feng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Andre Machado Journal: Trials Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: E B Plow; V Sankarasubramanian; D A Cunningham; K Potter-Baker; N Varnerin; L G Cohen; A Sterr; A B Conforto; A G Machado Journal: Neural Plast Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.599