Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method able to modulate neuronal activity after stroke. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if tDCS combined with robotic therapy (RT) improves limb function after stroke when compared to RT alone. Methods A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to July 15, 2021 was performed. The main outcome was function assessed with the Fugl-Meyer motor assessment for upper extremities (FM/ue) and 10-m walking test (10MWT) for the lower limbs. As secondary outcomes, strength was assessed with the Motricity Index (MI) or Medical Research Council scale (MRC), spasticity with the modified Ashworth scale (MAS), functional independence with the Barthel Index (BI), and kinematic parameters. Results Ten studies were included for analysis (n = 368 enrolled participants). The results showed a non-significant effect for tDCS combined with RT to improve upper limb function [standardized mean difference (SMD) = − 0.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): − 0.35–0.11)]. However, a positive effect of the combined therapy was observed in the lower limb function (SMD = 0.48; 95% CI: − 0.15–1.12). Significant results favouring tDCS combined with RT were not found in strength (SMD = − 0.15; 95% CI: − 0.4–0.1), spasticity [mean difference (MD) =  − 0.15; 95% CI: − 0.8–0.5)], functional independence (MD = 2.5; 95% CI: − 1.9–6.9) or velocity of movement (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI: − 0.3–0.5) with a “moderate” or “low” recommendation level according to the GRADE guidelines. Conclusions Current findings suggest that tDCS combined with RT does not improve upper limb function, strength, spasticity, functional independence or velocity of movement after stroke. However, tDCS may enhance the effects of RT alone for lower limb function. tDCS parameters and the stage or type of stroke injury could be crucial factors that determine the effectiveness of this therapy.

Surface EMG-driven modelling has been proposed as a means to control assistive devices by estimating joint torques. Implanted EMG sensors have several advantages over wearable sensors but provide a more localized information on muscle activity, which may impact torque estimates. Here, we tested and compared the use of surface and intramuscular EMG measurements for the estimation of required assistive joint torques using EMG driven modelling. Methods: Four healthy subjects and three incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) patients performed walking trials at varying speeds. Motion capture marker trajectories, surface and intramuscular EMG, and ground reaction forces were measured concurrently. Subject-specific musculoskeletal models were developed for all subjects, and inverse dynamics analysis was performed for all individual trials. EMG-driven modelling based joint torque estimates were obtained from surface and intramuscular EMG. Results: The correlation between the experimental and predicted joint torques was similar when using intramuscular or surface EMG as input to the EMG-driven modelling estimator in both healthy individuals and patients. Conclusion: We have provided the first comparison of non-invasive and implanted EMG sensors as input signals for torque estimates in healthy individuals and SCI patients. Significance: Implanted EMG sensors have the potential to be used as a reliable input for assistive exoskeleton joint torque actuation.

Transcutaneous electrical spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) is a non-invasive technique for neuromodulation and has therapeutic potential for motor rehabilitation following spinal cord injury. The main aim of the present study is to quantify the effect of a single session of tSCS on lower limb motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in healthy participants. A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized, crossover, clinical trial was carried out in 15 participants. Two 10-min sessions of tSCS (active-tSCS and sham-tSCS) were applied at the T11-T12 vertebral level. Quadriceps (Q) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscle MEPs were recorded at baseline, during and after tSCS. Q and TA isometric maximal voluntary contraction was also recorded. A significant increase of the Q-MEP amplitude was observed during active-tSCS (1.96 ± 0.3 mV) when compared from baseline (1.40 ± 0.2 mV; p = 0.01) and when compared to sham-tSCS at the same time-point (1.13 ± 0.3 mV; p = 0.03). No significant modulation was identified for TA-MEP amplitude or for Q and TA isometric maximal voluntary isometric strength. In conclusion, tSCS applied over the T11-T12 vertebral level increased Q-MEP but not TA-MEP compared to sham stimulation. The specific neuromodulatory effect of tSCS on Q-MEP may reflect optimal excitation of this motor response at the interneuronal or motoneuronal level.