Shapour Jaberzadeh1, Andisheh Bastani2, Maryam Zoghi3. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: andisheh.bastanijahromi@monash.edu. 3. Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effects of anodal-transcranial pulsed current stimulation (a-tPCS) with conventional anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) on corticospinal excitability (CSE) in healthy individuals. METHODS: CSE of the dominant primary motor cortex of the resting right extensor carpi radialis muscle was assessed before, immediately, 10, 20 and 30min after application of four experimental conditions: (1) a-tDCS, (2) a-tPCS with short inter-pulse interval (a-tPCSSIPI, 50ms), (3) a-tPCS with long inter-pulse interval (a-tPCSLIPI., 650ms) and (4) sham a-tPCS. The total charges were kept constant in all experimental conditions except sham condition. The outcome measure in this study was motor evoked potentials. RESULTS: Only a-tDCS and a-tPCSSIPI (P<0.05) induced significant increases in CSE, lasted for at least 30min. Post-hoc tests indicated that this increase was larger in a-tPCSSIPI (P<0.05). There were no significant changes following application of a-tPCSLIPI and sham a-tPCS. All participants tolerated the applied currents in all experimental conditions very well. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a-tDCS, a-tPCSSIPI is a better technique for enhancement of CSE. There were no sham effects for application of a-tPCS. However, unlike a-tDCS which modifies neuronal excitability by tonic depolarization of the resting membrane potential, a-tPCS modifies neuronal excitability by a combination of tonic and phasic effects. SIGNIFICANCE: a-tPCS could be considered as a promising neuromodulatory tool in basic neuroscience and as a therapeutic technique in neurorehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effects of anodal-transcranial pulsed current stimulation (a-tPCS) with conventional anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) on corticospinal excitability (CSE) in healthy individuals. METHODS: CSE of the dominant primary motor cortex of the resting right extensor carpi radialis muscle was assessed before, immediately, 10, 20 and 30min after application of four experimental conditions: (1) a-tDCS, (2) a-tPCS with short inter-pulse interval (a-tPCSSIPI, 50ms), (3) a-tPCS with long inter-pulse interval (a-tPCSLIPI., 650ms) and (4) sham a-tPCS. The total charges were kept constant in all experimental conditions except sham condition. The outcome measure in this study was motor evoked potentials. RESULTS: Only a-tDCS and a-tPCSSIPI (P<0.05) induced significant increases in CSE, lasted for at least 30min. Post-hoc tests indicated that this increase was larger in a-tPCSSIPI (P<0.05). There were no significant changes following application of a-tPCSLIPI and sham a-tPCS. All participants tolerated the applied currents in all experimental conditions very well. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a-tDCS, a-tPCSSIPI is a better technique for enhancement of CSE. There were no sham effects for application of a-tPCS. However, unlike a-tDCS which modifies neuronal excitability by tonic depolarization of the resting membrane potential, a-tPCS modifies neuronal excitability by a combination of tonic and phasic effects. SIGNIFICANCE: a-tPCS could be considered as a promising neuromodulatory tool in basic neuroscience and as a therapeutic technique in neurorehabilitation.
Keywords:
Corticospinal excitability; Neuroplasticity; Non-invasive brain stimulation; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Transcranial pulsed current stimulation
Authors: Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Greg Kronberg; William J Tyler; Andrea Antal; Abhishek Datta; Bernhard A Sabel; Michael A Nitsche; Colleen Loo; Dylan Edwards; Hamed Ekhtiari; Helena Knotkova; Adam J Woods; Benjamin M Hampstead; Bashar W Badran; Angel V Peterchev Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Josette Zaklit; Alex Cabrera; Aaron Shaw; Rita Aoun; P Thomas Vernier; Normand Leblanc; Gale L Craviso Journal: Bioelectrochemistry Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 5.760
Authors: Alice Barra; Martin Rosenfelder; Sepehr Mortaheb; Manon Carrière; Geraldine Martens; Yelena G Bodien; Leon Morales-Quezada; Andreas Bender; Steven Laureys; Aurore Thibaut; Felipe Fregni Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-03-24
Authors: Phan Luu; Easwara Moorthy Essaki Arumugam; Erik Anderson; Amanda Gunn; Dennis Rech; Sergei Turovets; Don M Tucker Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.169