Literature DB >> 26294062

'I-wave' Recruitment Determines Response to tDCS in the Upper Limb, but Only So Far.

Alana B McCambridge1, James W Stinear1, Winston D Byblow2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can facilitate primary motor cortex (M1), but the modulation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) by a-tDCS varies between participants, and may depend on the balance between early versus late I-wave recruitment, as assessed by the difference in MEP latency between latero-medial and anterior-posterior cortical currents induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
OBJECTIVE: To date, the dependence of tDCS after-effects on I-wave recruitment has only been investigated in intrinsic hand muscles. In order to better understand the effects of tDCS across the upper limb, the present study examined I-wave recruitment and MEP modulation by a-tDCS or dual-hemisphere tDCS in muscles of the forearm (Extensor Carpi Radialis; ECR) and proximal upper limb (Biceps Brachii; BB).
METHODS: We conducted a randomized double-blind study with 18 healthy adults. Each received anodal, dual-hemisphere, or sham tDCS over M1 in separate sessions (tDCS, 1 mA for 15 min).
RESULTS: Linear regression analyzes showed a-tDCS modulated MEP size dependent on the latency difference in the ECR (P = 0.01) but not BB (P = 0.28). Individuals with small MEP latency differences showed the expected facilitation of ECR MEPs after a-tDCS, whereas those with large MEP latency differences had suppressed ECR MEPs after a-tDCS. This relationship was not present after dual-hemisphere or sham tDCS in either muscle (all P > 0.32).
CONCLUSIONS: I-wave recruitment can predict the after-effects of a-tDCS in the distal but not proximal upper limb. These findings provide further insight into the variability of tDCS after-effects, and the relationship between I-wave recruitment and putative mechanisms of tDCS.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electrode montage; I-waves; MEP; Proximal; TMS; tDCS

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26294062     DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2015.07.027

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


  14 in total

1.  Neurophysiological and behavioural effects of dual-hemisphere transcranial direct current stimulation on the proximal upper limb.

Authors:  Alana B McCambridge; James W Stinear; Winston D Byblow
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-09       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Distinct Corticocortical Contributions to Human Precision and Power Grip.

Authors:  Paolo Federico; Monica A Perez
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 5.357

3.  Facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation in older adults: the effect of stimulation type and duration on the induction of motor cortex plasticity.

Authors:  Rohan Puri; Mark R Hinder; Alison J Canty; Jeffery J Summers
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-23       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Adaptive threshold hunting for the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on primary motor cortex inhibition.

Authors:  Ronan A Mooney; John Cirillo; Winston D Byblow
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 5.  Interactions Between Cerebellum and the Intracortical Excitatory Circuits of Motor Cortex: a Mini-Review.

Authors:  George M Opie; Wei-Yeh Liao; John G Semmler
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.847

6.  Brain State-Dependent Closed-Loop Modulation of Paired Associative Stimulation Controlled by Sensorimotor Desynchronization.

Authors:  Vladislav Royter; Alireza Gharabaghi
Journal:  Front Cell Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 5.505

7.  Measures to Predict The Individual Variability of Corticospinal Responses Following Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.

Authors:  Nathan D Nuzum; Ashlee M Hendy; Aaron P Russell; Wei-Peng Teo
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Neurophysiological signatures of hand motor response to dual-transcranial direct current stimulation in subacute stroke: a TMS and MEG study.

Authors:  I-Ju Kuo; Chih-Wei Tang; Yun-An Tsai; Shuen-Chang Tang; Chun-Jen Lin; Shih-Pin Hsu; Wei-Kuang Liang; Chi-Hung Juan; Catharina Zich; Charlotte J Stagg; I-Hui Lee
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 4.262

Review 9.  Transcranial brain stimulation: closing the loop between brain and stimulation.

Authors:  Anke Karabanov; Axel Thielscher; Hartwig Roman Siebner
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 5.710

10.  A Bout of High Intensity Interval Training Lengthened Nerve Conduction Latency to the Non-exercised Affected Limb in Chronic Stroke.

Authors:  Beraki Abraha; Arthur R Chaves; Liam P Kelly; Elizabeth M Wallack; Katie P Wadden; Jason McCarthy; Michelle Ploughman
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 4.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.