Corticomotor excitability induced by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation with and without non-exhaustive movement

Miyaguchi, Shota; Onishi, Hideaki; Kojima, Sho; Sugawara, Kazuhiro; Tsubaki, Atsuhiro; Kirimoto, Hikari; Tamaki, Hiroyuki; Yamamoto, Noriaki

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2013.07.026

Cited by 59 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar effects were also observed in humans’ motor cortex excitability (Nitsche and Paulus, 2000; Stagg and Nitsche, 2011; Pellicciari et al, 2013), where anodal and cathodal stimulation increased and decreased MEP amplitudes, respectively. This suggests that, consistent with previous studies done on animals, the excitability of cortico-motor neurons was modulated by the current direction of tDCS (Antal et al, 2007; Miyaguchi et al, 2013; Chew et al, 2015). The assumption of bipolarity with opposite neuronal and cognitive effects has since been adopted in many of the earlier cognitive work (for a review, see Paulus, 2011; Vallar and Bolognini, 2011; Jacobson et al, 2012; Horvath et al, 2015a,b).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Individual Differences and State-Dependent Responses in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Hsu

Juan

Tseng

2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been extensively used to examine whether neural activities can be selectively increased or decreased with manipulations of current polarity. Recently, the field has reevaluated the traditional anodal-increase and cathodal-decrease assumption due to the growing number of mixed findings that report the effects of the opposite directions. Therefore, the directionality of tDCS polarities and how it affects each individual still remain unclear. In this study, we used a visual working memory (VWM) paradigm and systematically manipulated tDCS polarities, types of different independent baseline measures, and task difficulty to investigate how these factors interact to determine the outcome effect of tDCS. We observed that only low-performers, as defined by their no-tDCS corsi block tapping (CBT) performance, persistently showed a decrement in VWM performance after anodal stimulation, whereas no tDCS effect was found when participants were divided by their performance in digit span. In addition, only the optimal level of task difficulty revealed any significant tDCS effect. All these findings were consistent across different blocks, suggesting that the tDCS effect was stable across a short period of time. Lastly, there was a high degree of intra-individual consistency in one’s responsiveness to tDCS, namely that participants who showed positive or negative effect to anodal stimulation are also more likely to show the same direction of effects for cathodal stimulation. Together, these findings imply that tDCS effect is interactive and state dependent: task difficulty and consistent individual differences modulate one’s responsiveness to tDCS, while researchers’ choices of independent behavioral baseline measures can also critically affect how the effect of tDCS is evaluated. These factors together are likely the key contributors to the wide range of “noises” in tDCS effects between individuals, between stimulation protocols, and between different studies in the literature. Future studies using tDCS, and possibly tACS, should take such state-dependent condition in tDCS responsiveness into account.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Individual Differences and State-Dependent Responses in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Hsu

Juan

Tseng

2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anodal stimulation increases cortical excitability, whereas cathodal stimulation decreases it. Functional neuroimaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies report that tDCS can modulate motor cortex excitability in normal patients [16,18,19]. However, little is known about this topic in stroke patients, and knowledge regarding the mechanisms of motor recovery following tDCS remains limited in stroke patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancement of Cortical Excitability and Lower Limb Motor Function in Patients With Stroke by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Converging evidence suggests that afferent somatosensory inputs such as peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PES), muscle tendon vibration and active and passive movements can induce changes in primary motor cortex (M1) excitability (Naito et al, 1999, 2002; Ridding et al, 2000; Kaelin-Lang et al, 2002; Macé et al, 2008; Miyaguchi et al, 2013; Onishi et al, 2013; Kotan et al, 2015). Somatosensory inputs play a major role in motor control at the cortical level; this is a critical aspect of sensorimotor integration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presence and Absence of Muscle Contraction Elicited by Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation Differentially Modulate Primary Motor Cortex Excitability

Sasaki

Kotan

Nakagawa

et al. 2017

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modulation of cortical excitability by sensory inputs is a critical component of sensorimotor integration. Sensory afferents, including muscle and joint afferents, to somatosensory cortex (S1) modulate primary motor cortex (M1) excitability, but the effects of muscle and joint afferents specifically activated by muscle contraction are unknown. We compared motor evoked potentials (MEPs) following median nerve stimulation (MNS) above and below the contraction threshold based on the persistence of M-waves. Peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PES) conditions, including right MNS at the wrist at 110% motor threshold (MT; 110% MNS condition), right MNS at the index finger (sensory digit nerve stimulation [DNS]) with stimulus intensity approximately 110% MNS (DNS condition), and right MNS at the wrist at 90% MT (90% MNS condition) were applied. PES was administered in a 4 s ON and 6 s OFF cycle for 20 min at 30 Hz. In Experiment 1 (n = 15), MEPs were recorded from the right abductor pollicis brevis (APB) before (baseline) and after PES. In Experiment 2 (n = 15), M- and F-waves were recorded from the right APB. Stimulation at 110% MNS at the wrist evoking muscle contraction increased MEP amplitudes after PES compared with those at baseline, whereas DNS at the index finger and 90% MNS at the wrist not evoking muscle contraction decreased MEP amplitudes after PES. M- and F-waves, which reflect spinal cord or muscular and neuromuscular junctions, did not change following PES. These results suggest that muscle contraction and concomitant muscle/joint afferent inputs specifically enhance M1 excitability.

show abstract

Corticomotor excitability induced by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation with and without non-exhaustive movement

Cited by 59 publications

References 59 publications

Individual Differences and State-Dependent Responses in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Individual Differences and State-Dependent Responses in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Enhancement of Cortical Excitability and Lower Limb Motor Function in Patients With Stroke by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Presence and Absence of Muscle Contraction Elicited by Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation Differentially Modulate Primary Motor Cortex Excitability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About