Jost-Julian Rumpf1, Sophie Dietrich2, Muriel Stoppe2, Christopher Fricke2, David Weise2, Florian Then Bergh2, Joseph Classen3. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. jost-julian.rumpf@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. joseph.classen@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether consolidation after motor learning can be facilitated by offline (post-training) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: In this cross-sectional double-blind interventional study, effects of tDCS on motor consolidation were examined in 14 patients with relapsing remitting MS [median Expanded Disability Status Scale score 2.0 (range 1-4)] and 14 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. tDCS with the anode placed over the left primary motor cortex and the cathode placed over the right supraorbital region was applied immediately after a training session of an explicit sequential finger-tapping task that was performed with the right (dominant) hand. Task performance was retested after an interval of 8 h to assess consolidation. Participants took part in two experimental sessions separated by at least 7 days which differed with respect to type of post-training tDCS, i.e., sham and verum stimulation. RESULTS: Patients with MS performed worse than controls in functional motor tests and the motor sequence task. However, learning speed and magnitude of online performance increments during the training session were comparable to controls. While post-training tDCS facilitated motor consolidation in controls, patients with MS did not benefit from this type of intervention. CONCLUSION: Absence of post-training tDCS-induced facilitation of consolidation in patients with MS suggests that the interaction of tDCS with the motor consolidation network is inefficient. Identification of the underlying disease-related mechanisms will have important implications for the design of studies aiming to promote motor recovery in MS by non-invasive brain stimulation.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether consolidation after motor learning can be facilitated by offline (post-training) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: In this cross-sectional double-blind interventional study, effects of tDCS on motor consolidation were examined in 14 patients with relapsing remitting MS [median Expanded Disability Status Scale score 2.0 (range 1-4)] and 14 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. tDCS with the anode placed over the left primary motor cortex and the cathode placed over the right supraorbital region was applied immediately after a training session of an explicit sequential finger-tapping task that was performed with the right (dominant) hand. Task performance was retested after an interval of 8 h to assess consolidation. Participants took part in two experimental sessions separated by at least 7 days which differed with respect to type of post-training tDCS, i.e., sham and verum stimulation. RESULTS:Patients with MS performed worse than controls in functional motor tests and the motor sequence task. However, learning speed and magnitude of online performance increments during the training session were comparable to controls. While post-training tDCS facilitated motor consolidation in controls, patients with MS did not benefit from this type of intervention. CONCLUSION: Absence of post-training tDCS-induced facilitation of consolidation in patients with MS suggests that the interaction of tDCS with the motor consolidation network is inefficient. Identification of the underlying disease-related mechanisms will have important implications for the design of studies aiming to promote motor recovery in MS by non-invasive brain stimulation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Motor consolidation; Motor learning; Multiple sclerosis; Transcranial direct current stimulation
Authors: Michael A Nitsche; Astrid Schauenburg; Nicolas Lang; David Liebetanz; Cornelia Exner; Walter Paulus; Frithjof Tergau Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Bradley R King; Philippe Saucier; Genevieve Albouy; Stuart M Fogel; Jost-Julian Rumpf; Juliane Klann; Giovanni Buccino; Ferdinand Binkofski; Joseph Classen; Avi Karni; Julien Doyon Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Janine Reis; Heidi M Schambra; Leonardo G Cohen; Ethan R Buch; Brita Fritsch; Eric Zarahn; Pablo A Celnik; John W Krakauer Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.205
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
Authors: Andrea Tacchino; Marco Bove; Luca Roccatagliata; Giovanni Luigi Mancardi; Antonio Uccelli; Laura Bonzano Journal: Brain Res Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: L Mancini; O Ciccarelli; F Manfredonia; J S Thornton; F Agosta; F Barkhof; C Beckmann; N De Stefano; C Enzinger; F Fazekas; M Filippi; A Gass; J G Hirsch; H Johansen-Berg; L Kappos; T Korteweg; S C Manson; S Marino; P M Matthews; X Montalban; J Palace; C Polman; M Rocca; S Ropele; A Rovira; C Wegner; K Friston; A Thompson; T Yousry Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Bradley R King; Jost-Julian Rumpf; Elvire Verbaanderd; Kirstin F Heise; Nina Dolfen; Stefan Sunaert; Julien Doyon; Joseph Classen; Dante Mantini; Nicolaas A J Puts; Richard A E Edden; Geneviève Albouy; Stephan P Swinnen Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 5.399