Literature DB >> 23088854

Interaction between simultaneously applied neuromodulatory interventions in humans.

Siobhan M Schabrun1, Lucinda S Chipchase, Natasha Zipf, Gary W Thickbroom, Paul W Hodges.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory technique with the potential to enhance the efficacy of traditional therapies such as neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Yet, concurrent application of tDCS/NMES may also activate homeostatic mechanisms that block or reverse effects on corticomotor excitability. It is unknown how tDCS and NMES interact in the human primary motor cortex (M1) and whether effects are summative (increase corticomotor excitability beyond that of tDCS or NMES applied alone) or competitive (block or reduce corticomotor excitability effects of tDCS or NMES applied alone).
OBJECTIVE: To investigate corticomotor excitability in response to NMES after concurrent application of tDCS protocols that enhance (anodal tDCS) or suppress (cathodal tDCS) excitability of M1.
METHODS: We used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to examine corticomotor excitability before and after the concurrent application of: i) NMES with anodal tDCS; and ii) NMES with cathodal tDCS. Effects were contrasted to four control conditions: i) NMES alone, ii) anodal tDCS alone, iii) cathodal tDCS alone, and iv) sham stimulation.
RESULTS: Concurrent application of two protocols that enhance excitability when applied alone (NMES and anodal tDCS) failed to induce summative effects on corticomotor excitability, as predicted by homeostatic plasticity mechanisms. Combined cathodal tDCS and NMES suppressed the enhanced excitation induced by NMES, an effect that might be explained by calcium dependent anti-gating models.
CONCLUSIONS: These novel findings highlight the complex mechanisms involved when two neuromodulatory techniques are combined and suggest that careful testing of combined interventions is necessary before application in clinical contexts.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Homeostatic metaplasticity; Neuromuscular electrical stimulation; Primary motor cortex; Transcranial direct current stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23088854     DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.09.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  12 in total

1.  Emerging treatments for motor rehabilitation after stroke.

Authors:  Edward S Claflin; Chandramouli Krishnan; Sandeep P Khot
Journal:  Neurohospitalist       Date:  2015-04

2.  Response variability of different anodal transcranial direct current stimulation intensities across multiple sessions.

Authors:  Claudia Ammann; Martin A Lindquist; Pablo A Celnik
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Effects of a common transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol on motor evoked potentials found to be highly variable within individuals over 9 testing sessions.

Authors:  Jared Cooney Horvath; Simon J Vogrin; Olivia Carter; Mark J Cook; Jason D Forte
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Motor Restoration in Hemiplegia.

Authors:  Jayme S Knutson; Michael J Fu; Lynne R Sheffler; John Chae
Journal:  Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 1.784

5.  Does Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Peripheral Electrical Stimulation Have an Additive Effect in the Control of Hip Joint Osteonecrosis Pain Associated with Sickle Cell Disease? A Protocol for a One-Session Double Blind, Block-Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Tiago da Silva Lopes; Wellington Dos Santos Silva; Sânzia B Ribeiro; Camila A Figueiredo; Fernanda Q Campbell; Gildasio de Cerqueira Daltro; Antônio Valenzuela; Pedro Montoya; Rita de C S Lucena; Abrahão F Baptista
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Additive effect of tDCS combined with Peripheral Electrical Stimulation to an exercise program in pain control in knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Cleber Luz-Santos; Janine Ribeiro Camatti; Alaí Barbosa Paixão; Katia Nunes Sá; Pedro Montoya; Michael Lee; Abrahão Fontes Baptista
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Influence of Concurrent Finger Movements on Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)-Induced Aftereffects.

Authors:  Yuichiro Shirota; Daniella Terney; Andrea Antal; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.558

8.  The effect of electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability is dependent on application duration: a same subject pre-post test design.

Authors:  Rebecca K Andrews; Siobhan M Schabrun; Michael C Ridding; Mary P Galea; Paul W Hodges; Lucinda S Chipchase
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 4.262

Review 9.  Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be).

Authors:  Jared C Horvath; Olivia Carter; Jason D Forte
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-24

10.  Pediatric stroke and transcranial direct current stimulation: methods for rational individualized dose optimization.

Authors:  Bernadette T Gillick; Adam Kirton; Jason B Carmel; Preet Minhas; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-19       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.