Michele Devido Dos Santos1, Vitor Breseghello Cavenaghi2, Ana Paula Machado Goyano Mac-Kay3, Vitor Serafim2, Alexandre Venturi2, Dennis Quangvinh Truong4, Yu Huang4, Paulo Sérgio Boggio5, Felipe Fregni6, Marcel Simis7, Marom Bikson8, Rubens José Gagliardi9. 1. PhD. Professor of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil. 2. Medical Student, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil. 3. PhD. Professor of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Universidad Santo Tomás, Viña del Mar, Chile. 4. PhD. Biomedical Engineer, Engineering Department, City College of New York, New York, United States. 5. BSc, PhD. Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo (SP), Brazil. 6. MD, PhD, MPH. Associate Professor of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Associate Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Director Neuromodulation Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 7. MD, PhD. Neurologist, Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, and Instituto de Medicina Física e Reabilitação (IMREA), Hospital das Clínicas (HC), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil. 8. PhD. Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering, City College, City University of New York, New York, United States. 9. MD, PhD. Full Professor, Department of Neurology, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing the same neuromodulation protocol may present different responses. Computational models may help in understanding such differences. The aims of this study were, firstly, to compare the performance of aphasic patients in naming tasks before and after one session of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and sham, and analyze the results between these neuromodulation techniques; and secondly, through computational model on the cortex and surrounding tissues, to assess current flow distribution and responses among patients who received tDCS and presented different levels of results from naming tasks. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, descriptive, qualitative and quantitative, double blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study conducted at Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo. METHODS: Patients with aphasia received one session of tDCS, TMS or sham stimulation. The time taken to name pictures and the response time were evaluated before and after neuromodulation. Selected patients from the first intervention underwent a computational model stimulation procedure that simulated tDCS. RESULTS: The results did not indicate any statistically significant differences from before to after the stimulation.The computational models showed different current flow distributions. CONCLUSIONS: The present study did not show any statistically significant difference between tDCS, TMS and sham stimulation regarding naming tasks. The patients'responses to the computational model showed different patterns of current distribution.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE:Patients undergoing the same neuromodulation protocol may present different responses. Computational models may help in understanding such differences. The aims of this study were, firstly, to compare the performance of aphasic patients in naming tasks before and after one session of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and sham, and analyze the results between these neuromodulation techniques; and secondly, through computational model on the cortex and surrounding tissues, to assess current flow distribution and responses among patients who received tDCS and presented different levels of results from naming tasks. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, descriptive, qualitative and quantitative, double blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study conducted at Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo. METHODS:Patients with aphasia received one session of tDCS, TMS or sham stimulation. The time taken to name pictures and the response time were evaluated before and after neuromodulation. Selected patients from the first intervention underwent a computational model stimulation procedure that simulated tDCS. RESULTS: The results did not indicate any statistically significant differences from before to after the stimulation.The computational models showed different current flow distributions. CONCLUSIONS: The present study did not show any statistically significant difference between tDCS, TMS and sham stimulation regarding naming tasks. The patients'responses to the computational model showed different patterns of current distribution.
Authors: Lealem Mulugeta; Andrew Drach; Ahmet Erdemir; C A Hunt; Marc Horner; Joy P Ku; Jerry G Myers; Rajanikanth Vadigepalli; William W Lytton Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 4.081