Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates the spinal plasticity induced with patterned electrical stimulation

Fujiwara, Toshiyuki; Tsuji, Takao; Honaga, Kaoru; Hase, Kimitaka; Ushiba, Junichi; Liu, Meigen

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2011.02.002

Cited by 36 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, we confirmed that PES increased the degree of reciprocal Ia inhibition, which is consistent with previous findings [9,10]. In addition to increments in reciprocal Ia inhibition, we found that the amplitude of the TMS-conditioned H-reflex at the − 1 ms C-T interval was decreased by PES, and this was not concomitant with changes in motoneuron pool excitability.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

“…Ia inhibitory interneurons receive descending inputs from the motor cortex through the corticospinal tract [22], and the excitability of interneurons is controlled by corticospinal descending inputs [23]. Fujiwara et al [10] showed that the effects of PES on reciprocal Ia inhibition were modulated by supraspinal descending inputs. However, a stimulus intensity (∼2-3 × MT) higher than the intensity used in this study appeared to be necessary to increase TA motor cortex excitability [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Patterned electrical nerve stimulation (PES) resembling sensory feedback from the ankle flexor muscle while walking has been suggested to reinforce the reciprocal Ia inhibitory circuit [9,10]. As increments in corticospinal excitability induced by noninvasive brain stimulation, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation, did not increase the strength of reciprocal Ia inhibition [11,12], changes in reciprocal Ia inhibition with PES observed in these studies indicate that afferent inputs from the ankle flexor muscle are critical for reinforcing this circuit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patterned sensory nerve stimulation enhances the reactivity of spinal Ia inhibitory interneurons

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterned sensory nerve stimulation has been shown to induce plastic changes in the reciprocal Ia inhibitory circuit. However, the mechanisms underlying these changes have not yet been elucidated in detail. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the reactivity of Ia inhibitory interneurons could be altered by patterned sensory nerve stimulation. The degree of reciprocal Ia inhibition, the conditioning effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on the soleus (SOL) muscle H-reflex, and the ratio of the maximum H-reflex amplitude versus maximum M-wave (H(max)/M(max)) were examined in 10 healthy individuals. Patterned electrical nerve stimulation was applied to the common peroneal nerve every 1 s (100 Hz-5 train) at the motor threshold intensity of tibialis anterior muscle to induce activity changes in the reciprocal Ia inhibitory circuit. Reciprocal Ia inhibition, the TMS-conditioned H-reflex amplitude, and H(max)/M(max) were recorded before, immediately after, and 15 min after the electrical stimulation. The patterned electrical nerve stimulation significantly increased the degree of reciprocal Ia inhibition and decreased the amplitude of the TMS-conditioned H-reflex in the short-latency inhibition phase, which was presumably mediated by Ia inhibitory interneurons. However, it had no effect on H(max)/M(max). Our results indicated that patterned sensory nerve stimulation could modulate the activity of Ia inhibitory interneurons, and this change may have been caused by the synaptic modification of Ia inhibitory interneuron terminals. These results may lead to a clearer understanding of the spinal cord synaptic plasticity produced by repetitive sensory inputs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patterned sensory nerve stimulation enhances the reactivity of spinal Ia inhibitory interneurons

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hippocampal slices were prepared as described previously (Jensen et al 1998;Sanchez et al 2001). Briefly, rat pups were decapitated with all procedures in accordance with guidelines set by the institutional animal care and use committee.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Applied to the mammalian cerebral cortex, cathodal tDCS induces an immediate and lasting (up to tens of minutes) decrease in excitability, whereas anodal tDCS increases excitability after a single session (Bindman et al 1964;Nitsche and Paulus 2000). Yet, in contrast to other neurostimulation methods, tDCS amplitudes are insufficient to generate action potentials (APs) in the stimulated cortex (Purpura and McMurtry 1965), suggesting a mechanism of action more reliant on modulation of ongoing neuronal activity than induction of new neuronal activity (Cambiaghi et al 2011;Fujiwara et al 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Contribution of axonal orientation to pathway-dependent modulation of excitatory transmission by direct current stimulation in isolated rat hippocampus

Kabakov

Müller

Pascual‐Leone

et al. 2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

203

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a method for modulating cortical excitability by weak constant electrical current that is applied through scalp electrodes. Although often described in terms of anodal or cathodal stimulation, depending on which scalp electrode pole is proximal to the cortical region of interest, it is the orientation of neuronal structures relative to the direct current (DC) vector that determines the effect of tDCS. To investigate the contribution of neural pathway orientation, we studied DCS-mediated neuromodulation in an in vitro rat hippocampal slice preparation. We examined the contribution of dendritic orientation to the direct current stimulation (DCS) neuromodulatory effect by recording field excitatory postsynaptic potentials (fEPSPs) in apical and basal dendrites of CA1 neurons within a constant DC field. In addition, we assessed the contribution of axonal orientation by recording CA1 and CA3 apical fEPSPs generated by stimulation of oppositely oriented Schaffer collateral and mossy fiber axons, respectively, during DCS. Finally, nonsynaptic excitatory signal propagation was measured along antidromically stimulated CA1 axons at different DCS amplitudes and polarity. We find that modulation of both the fEPSP and population spike depends on axonal orientation relative to the electric field vector. Axonal orientation determines whether the DC field is excitatory or inhibitory and dendritic orientation affects the magnitude, but not the overall direction, of the DC effect. These data suggest that tDCS may oppositely affect neurons in a stimulated cortical volume if these neurons are excited by oppositely orientated axons in a constant electrical field.

show abstract

The effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and patterned electrical stimulation on spinal inhibitory interneurons and motor function in patients with spinal cord injury

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supraspinal excitability and sensory input may play an important role for the modulation of spinal inhibitory interneurons and functional recovery among patients with incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). Here, we investigated the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with patterned electrical stimulation (PES) on spinal inhibitory interneurons in patients with chronic incomplete SCI and in healthy individuals. Eleven patients with incomplete SCI and ten healthy adults participated in a single-masked, sham-controlled crossover study. PES involved stimulating the common peroneal nerve with a train of ten 100 Hz pulses every 2 s for 20 min. Anodal tDCS (1 mA) was simultaneously applied to the primary motor cortex that controls the tibialis anterior muscle. We measured reciprocal inhibition and presynaptic inhibition of a soleus H-reflex by stimulating the common peroneal nerve prior to tibial nerve stimulation, which elicits the H-reflex. The inhibition was assessed before, immediately after, 10 min after and 20 min after the stimulation. Compared with baseline, simultaneous application of anodal tDCS with PES significantly increased changes in disynaptic reciprocal inhibition and long-latency presynaptic inhibition in both healthy and SCI groups for at least 20 min after the stimulation (all, p < 0.001). In patients with incomplete SCI, anodal tDCS with PES significantly increased the number of ankle movements in 10 s at 20 min after the stimulation (p = 0.004). In conclusion, anodal tDCS combined with PES could induce spinal plasticity and improve ankle movement in patients with incomplete SCI.

show abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates the spinal plasticity induced with patterned electrical stimulation

Cited by 36 publications

References 23 publications

Patterned sensory nerve stimulation enhances the reactivity of spinal Ia inhibitory interneurons

Patterned sensory nerve stimulation enhances the reactivity of spinal Ia inhibitory interneurons

Contribution of axonal orientation to pathway-dependent modulation of excitatory transmission by direct current stimulation in isolated rat hippocampus

The effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and patterned electrical stimulation on spinal inhibitory interneurons and motor function in patients with spinal cord injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About