Peripheral electrical stimulation (ES) is commonly used as an intervention to facilitate movement and relieve pain in a variety of conditions. It is widely accepted that ES induces rapid plastic change in the motor cortex. This leads to the exciting possibility that ES could be used to drive cortical plasticity in movement disorders, such as stroke, and conditions where pain affects motor control. This paper aimed to critically review the literature to determine which parameters induced cortical plasticity in healthy individuals using ES. A literature search located papers that assessed plasticity in the primary motor cortex of adult humans. Studies that evaluated plasticity using change in the amplitude of potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex were included. Details from each study including sample size, ES parameters and reported findings were extracted and compared. Where data were available, Cohen's standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Nineteen studies were located. Of the parameters evaluated, variation of the intensity of peripheral ES appeared to have the most consistent effect on modulation of excitability of corticomotor pathway to stimulated muscles. There was a trend for stimulation above motor threshold to increase excitability (SMD 0.79 mV, CI -0.10 to 1.64). Stimulation below motor threshold, but sufficient to induce sensory perception, produced conflicting results. Further studies with consistent methodology and larger subject numbers are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn. There also appeared to be a time effect. That is, longer periods of ES induced more sustained changes in cortical excitability. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of other stimulation parameters such as frequency and waveform. Further research is needed to confirm whether modulation of these parameters affects plastic change.
Meta-analyses and single studies offer some support for the effectiveness of passive sensory training in relation to sensory impairment and motor function. However, empirical evidence for active sensory training is limited. Further high-quality studies with greater statistical power and meaningful clinical measures are required in order to accurately determine the effectiveness of sensory retraining following stroke.
In the last decade transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been the subject of more than 20,000 original research articles. Despite this popularity, TMS responses are known to be highly variable and this variability can impact on interpretation of research findings. There are no guidelines regarding the factors that should be reported and/or controlled in TMS studies. This study aimed to develop a checklist to be recommended to evaluate the methodology and reporting of studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. A two round international web-based Delphi study was conducted. Panellists rated the importance of a number of subject, methodological and analytical factors to be reported and/or controlled in studies that use single or paired pulse TMS to study the motor system. Twenty-seven items for single pulse studies and 30 items for paired pulse studies were included in the final checklist. Eight items related to subjects (e.g. age, gender), 21 to methodology (e.g. coil type, stimulus intensity) and two to analysis (e.g. size of the unconditioned motor evoked potential). The checklist is recommended for inclusion when submitting manuscripts for publication to ensure transparency of reporting and could also be used to critically appraise previously published work. It is envisaged that factors could be added and deleted from the checklist on the basis of future research. Use of the TMS methodological checklist should improve the quality of data collection and reporting in TMS studies of the motor system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.