No abstract

Functional motor declines that often occur with advancing age -including reduced efficacy to learn new skills -can have a substantial impact on the quality of life. Recent studies using non-invasive brain stimulation indicate that priming the corticospinal system by lowering the threshold for the induction of long-term potentiation (LTP)-like plasticity before skill training may facilitate subsequent skill learning. Here we utilized 'priming' protocol, in which we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applying the cathode over the primary motor cortex (M1) prior to the anode placed over M1 during unimanual isometric force control training (FORCEtraining). Older individuals who received tDCS with the cathode placed over M1 prior to tDCS with the anode placed over M1 concurrent with FORCEtraining showed greater skill improvement and corticospinal excitability increases following the tDCS/FORCEtraining protocol compared to both young and older individuals who did not receive the preceding tDCS with the cathode placed over M1. The results suggested that priming tDCS protocols may be used in clinical settings to improve motor function and thus maintain the functional independence of older adults.

Provision of a mirror image of a hand undertaking a motor task (i.e., mirror therapy) elicits behavioural improvements in the inactive hand. A greater understanding of the neural mechanisms underpinning this phenomenon is required to maximise its potential for rehabilitation across the lifespan, e.g., following hemiparesis or unilateral weakness. Young and older participants performed unilateral finger abductions with no visual feedback, with feedback of the active or passive hands, or with a mirror image of the active hand. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to assess feedback-related changes in two neurophysiological measures thought to be involved in inter-manual transfer of skill, namely corticospinal excitability (CSE) and intracortical inhibition (SICI) in the passive hemisphere. Task performance led to CSE increases, accompanied by decreases of SICI, in all visual feedback conditions relative to rest. However, the changes due to mirror feedback were not significantly different to those observed in the other (more standard) visual conditions. Accordingly, the unimanual motor action itself, rather than modifications in visual feedback, appears more instrumental in driving changes in CSE and SICI. Therefore, changes in CSE and SICI are unlikely to underpin the behavioural benefits of mirror therapy. We discuss implications for rehabilitation and directions of future research.

The well-documented observation of bilateral performance gains following unilateral motor training, a phenomenon known as cross-limb transfer, has important implications for rehabilitation. It has recently been shown that provision of a mirror image of the active hand during unilateral motor training has the capacity to enhance the efficacy of this phenomenon when compared to training without augmented visual feedback (i.e., watching the passive hand), possibly via action observation effects [1]. The current experiment was designed to confirm whether mirror-visual feedback (MVF) during motor training can indeed elicit greater performance gains in the untrained hand compared to more standard visual feedback (i.e., watching the active hand). Furthermore, discussing the mechanisms underlying any such MVF-induced behavioural effects, we suggest that action observation and the cross-activation hypothesis may both play important roles in eliciting cross-limb transfer. Eighty participants practiced a fast-as-possible two-ball rotation task with their dominant hand. During training, three different groups were provided with concurrent visual feedback of the active hand, inactive hand or a mirror image of the active hand with a fourth control group receiving no training. Pre- and post-training performance was measured in both hands. MVF did not increase the extent of training-induced performance changes in the untrained hand following unilateral training above and beyond those observed for other types of feedback. The data are consistent with the notion that cross-limb transfer, when combined with MVF, is mediated by cross-activation with action observation playing a less unique role than previously suggested. Further research is needed to replicate the current and previous studies to determine the clinical relevance and potential benefits of MVF for cases that, due to the severity of impairment, rely on unilateral training programmes of the unaffected limb to drive changes in the contralateral affected limb.

No abstract