Literature DB >> 27150317

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.

Jared Cooney Horvath1,2,3, Simon J Vogrin4, Olivia Carter5, Mark J Cook5,4, Jason D Forte5.   

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses a weak electric current to modulate neuronal activity. A neurophysiologic outcome measure to demonstrate reliable tDCS modulation at the group level is transcranial magnetic stimulation engendered motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Here, we conduct a study testing the reliability of individual MEP response patterns following a common tDCS protocol. Fourteen participants (7m/7f) each underwent nine randomized sessions of 1 mA, 10 min tDCS (3 anode; 3 cathode; 3 sham) delivered using an M1/orbito-frontal electrode montage (sessions separated by an average of ~5.5 days). Fifteen MEPs were obtained prior to, immediately following and in 5 min intervals for 30 min following tDCS. TMS was delivered at 130 % resting motor threshold using neuronavigation to ensure consistent coil localization. A number of non-experimental variables were collected during each session. At the individual level, considerable variability was seen among different testing sessions. No participant demonstrated an excitatory response ≥20 % to all three anodal sessions, and no participant demonstrated an inhibitory response ≥20 % to all three cathodal sessions. Intra-class correlation revealed poor anodal and cathodal test-retest reliability [anode: ICC(2,1) = 0.062; cathode: ICC(2,1) = 0.055] and moderate sham test-retest reliability [ICC(2,1) = 0.433]. Results also revealed no significant effect of tDCS at the group level. Using this common protocol, we found the effects of tDCS on MEP amplitudes to be highly variable at the individual level. In addition, no significant effects of tDCS on MEP amplitude were found at the group level. Future studies should consider utilizing a more strict experimental protocol to potentially account for intra-individual response variations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Longitudinal; Motor evoked potentials (MEPs); Reliability; Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27150317     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4667-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  73 in total

1.  Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the human motor cortex on corticospinal and transcallosal excitability.

Authors:  N Lang; M A Nitsche; W Paulus; J C Rothwell; R N Lemon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-01-24       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 2.  The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex.

Authors:  A Karni; G Meyer; C Rey-Hipolito; P Jezzard; M M Adams; R Turner; L G Ungerleider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-02-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation.

Authors:  Katia Monte-Silva; Min-Fang Kuo; Silvia Hessenthaler; Shane Fresnoza; David Liebetanz; Walter Paulus; Michael A Nitsche
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Comparison of the after-effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex in patients with stroke and healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Kanjiro Suzuki; Toshiyuki Fujiwara; Naofumi Tanaka; Tetsuya Tsuji; Yoshihisa Masakado; Kimitaka Hase; Akio Kimura; Meigen Liu
Journal:  Int J Neurosci       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.292

5.  Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans.

Authors:  G Batsikadze; V Moliadze; W Paulus; M-F Kuo; M A Nitsche
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Human cerebral cortical responses to contralateral transcranial stimulation.

Authors:  V E Amassian; R Q Cracco
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Differentiation of motor cortical representation of hand muscles by navigated mapping of optimal TMS current directions in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Shahid Bashir; Jennifer M Perez; Jared C Horvath; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.177

Review 8.  The physiological basis of transcranial motor cortex stimulation in conscious humans.

Authors:  V Di Lazzaro; A Oliviero; F Pilato; E Saturno; M Dileone; P Mazzone; A Insola; P A Tonali; J C Rothwell
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  A higher number of TMS-elicited MEP from a combined hotspot improves intra- and inter-session reliability of the upper limb muscles in healthy individuals.

Authors:  Andisheh Bastani; Shapour Jaberzadeh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  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
View more
  30 in total

1.  Individual differences in TMS sensitivity influence the efficacy of tDCS in facilitating sensorimotor adaptation.

Authors:  L Labruna; A Stark-Inbar; A Breska; M Dabit; B Vanderschelden; M A Nitsche; R B Ivry
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Non-linear changes to corticospinal excitability induced with increasing intensities of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Alexander D Tang; Kartik K Iyer; Ann-Maree Vallence; Hakuei Fujiyama
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 5.182

3.  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

4.  Effect of conventional transcranial direct current stimulation devices and electrode sizes on motor cortical excitability of the quadriceps muscle.

Authors:  Adam Z Gardi; Amanda K Vogel; Aastha K Dharia; Chandramouli Krishnan
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 5.  Noninvasive neuromodulation and rehabilitation to promote functional restoration in persons with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Jennifer A Iddings; Anastasia Zarkou; Edelle C Field-Fote
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 6.283

6.  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

7.  Efficacy of tRNS and 140 Hz tACS on motor cortex excitability seemingly dependent on sensitivity to sham stimulation.

Authors:  Viktoria Kortuem; Navah Ester Kadish; Michael Siniatchkin; Vera Moliadze
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Temporal dynamics of cerebellar and motor cortex physiological processes during motor skill learning.

Authors:  D Spampinato; P Celnik
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Facilitate Dynamic Balance Task Learning in Healthy Old Adults.

Authors:  Elisabeth Kaminski; Maike Hoff; Viola Rjosk; Christopher J Steele; Christopher Gundlach; Bernhard Sehm; Arno Villringer; Patrick Ragert
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  The Importance of Sample Size for Reproducibility of tDCS Effects.

Authors:  Tamas Minarik; Barbara Berger; Laura Althaus; Veronika Bader; Bianca Biebl; Franziska Brotzeller; Theodor Fusban; Jessica Hegemann; Lea Jesteadt; Lukas Kalweit; Miriam Leitner; Francesca Linke; Natalia Nabielska; Thomas Reiter; Daniela Schmitt; Alexander Spraetz; Paul Sauseng
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.