Sudeshna A Chatterjee1, Rachael D Seidler2, Jared W Skinner3, Paige E Lysne4, Chanoan Sumonthee5, Samuel S Wu6, Ronald A Cohen7, Dorian K Rose8, Adam J Woods7, David J Clark9. 1. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: sudeshna1@ufl.edu. 2. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 5. College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 7. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 8. Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 9. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Complex walking in older adults can be improved with task practice and might be further enhanced by pairing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. We tested the hypothesis that a single session of practice of a complex obstacle negotiation task paired with active tDCS in older adults would produce greater within-session improvements in walking performance and retention of gains, compared to sham tDCS and no tDCS conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 older adults (mean age = 74.46 years ± 6.49) with self-reported walking difficulty were randomized to receive either active tDCS (active-tDCS group) or sham tDCS (sham-tDCS group) bilaterally to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or no tDCS (no-tDCS group). Each group performed ten practice trials of an obstacle negotiation task at their fastest safe speed. Retention of gains in walking performance was assessed with three trials conducted one week later. Within-session effects of practice and between-session retention effects on obstacle negotiation speed were examined. RESULTS: At the practice session, all three groups exhibited significant within-session gains in walking speed (p ≤ 0.005). However, the gains were significantly greater in the sham-tDCS group than in the active-tDCS and no-tDCS groups (p ≤ 0.03) and were comparable between the active-tDCS and no-tDCS groups (p = 0.89). At one-week follow-up, the active-tDCS group exhibited significant between-session retention of gains and continued "offline" improvement in walking speed (p = 0.005). The active-tDCS group showed significantly greater retention of gains than the no-tDCS (p = 0.02) but not the sham-tDCS group (p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Pairing prefrontal active tDCS with a single session of obstacle negotiation practice may enhance one-week retention of gains in walking performance compared to no tDCS. However, the evidence is insufficient to suggest a benefit of active tDCS over sham tDCS for enhancing the gains in walking performance. Additional studies with a multisession intervention design and larger sample size are needed to further investigate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03122236.
OBJECTIVES: Complex walking in older adults can be improved with task practice and might be further enhanced by pairing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. We tested the hypothesis that a single session of practice of a complex obstacle negotiation task paired with active tDCS in older adults would produce greater within-session improvements in walking performance and retention of gains, compared to sham tDCS and no tDCS conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 older adults (mean age = 74.46 years ± 6.49) with self-reported walking difficulty were randomized to receive either active tDCS (active-tDCS group) or sham tDCS (sham-tDCS group) bilaterally to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or no tDCS (no-tDCS group). Each group performed ten practice trials of an obstacle negotiation task at their fastest safe speed. Retention of gains in walking performance was assessed with three trials conducted one week later. Within-session effects of practice and between-session retention effects on obstacle negotiation speed were examined. RESULTS: At the practice session, all three groups exhibited significant within-session gains in walking speed (p ≤ 0.005). However, the gains were significantly greater in the sham-tDCS group than in the active-tDCS and no-tDCS groups (p ≤ 0.03) and were comparable between the active-tDCS and no-tDCS groups (p = 0.89). At one-week follow-up, the active-tDCS group exhibited significant between-session retention of gains and continued "offline" improvement in walking speed (p = 0.005). The active-tDCS group showed significantly greater retention of gains than the no-tDCS (p = 0.02) but not the sham-tDCS group (p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Pairing prefrontal active tDCS with a single session of obstacle negotiation practice may enhance one-week retention of gains in walking performance compared to no tDCS. However, the evidence is insufficient to suggest a benefit of active tDCS over sham tDCS for enhancing the gains in walking performance. Additional studies with a multisession intervention design and larger sample size are needed to further investigate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03122236.
Authors: Michael A Nitsche; Leonardo G Cohen; Eric M Wassermann; Alberto Priori; Nicolas Lang; Andrea Antal; Walter Paulus; Friedhelm Hummel; Paulo S Boggio; Felipe Fregni; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Kelly A Hawkins; Emily J Fox; Janis J Daly; Dorian K Rose; Evangelos A Christou; Theresa E McGuirk; Dana M Otzel; Katie A Butera; Sudeshna A Chatterjee; David J Clark Journal: Hum Mov Sci Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 2.161
Authors: Aprinda Indahlastari; Alejandro Albizu; Jessica N Kraft; Andrew O'Shea; Nicole R Nissim; Ayden L Dunn; Daniela Carballo; Michael P Gordon; Shreya Taank; Alex T Kahn; Cindy Hernandez; William M Zucker; Adam J Woods Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Nicole R Nissim; Andrew O'Shea; Aprinda Indahlastari; Jessica N Kraft; Olivia von Mering; Serkan Aksu; Eric Porges; Ronald Cohen; Adam J Woods Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 5.750