Search

We aimed to assess the effects of concurrent cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) of two targets in a hemisphere, termed unihemispheric concurrent dual-site cathodal tDCS (c-tDCSUHCDS ), on the size of M1 corticospinal excitability and its lasting effect. Secondary aims were to identify the mechanisms behind the efficacy of c-tDCSUHCDS and to evaluate the side effects of this new technique. Twelve healthy volunteers received 20 min c-tDCS under five conditions in a random order: M1 c-tDCS, c-tDCSUHCDS of M1-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), M1-primary sensory cortex (S1), M1-primary visual cortex (V1) and sham. The M1 corticospinal excitability of the first dorsal interossei muscle was assessed before, immediately after, and 30 min, 60 min and 24 h after the interventions. Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were also assessed, using a paired-pulse paradigm. Compared to conventional M1 c-tDCS, corticospinal excitability significantly increased following c-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC and M1-V1 for up to 24 h (P = 0.001). Significant increases in ICF were observed following c-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC (P = 0.005) and M1-V1 (P = 0.002). Compared to baseline values, ICF and SICI increased significantly at T60 (P < 0.001) and T24 h (P < 0.001) following the concurrent c-tDCS of M1 and V1. Sham c-tDCSUHCDS did not induce any significant alteration. The corticospinal excitability increase was mainly accompanied by ICF increase, which indirectly indicates the activity of glutamergic mechanisms. The findings may help us to more fully understand the brain function and develop future motor learning studies. No significant excitability change induced by sham c-tDCSUHCDS suggests that there is no placebo effect associated with this new tDCS technique.

The primary aim of our meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) on sensory and pain thresholds (STh and PTh) in healthy individuals and pain level (PL) in patients with chronic pain. Electronic databases were searched for c-tDCS studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro and Downs and Black (D&B) assessment tools. C-tDCS of the primary motor cortex (S1) increases both STh (P<0.001, effect size of 26.84%) and PTh (P<0.001, effect size of 11.62%). In addition, c-tDCS over M1 led to STh increase (P<0.005, effect size of 30.44%). Likewise, PL decreased significantly in the patient group following application of c-tDCS. The small number of studies precluded subgroup analysis. Nevertheless, meta-analysis showed that in all groups (except c-tDCS of S1) active c-tDCS and sham stimulation produced significant differences in STh/PTh in healthy and PL in patient group. This review provides evidence for the site-specific effectiveness of c-tDCS in increasing STh/PTh in healthy individuals and decreasing PL in patients with chronic pain. However, due to small sample sizes in the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution. Given that the level of blinding was not considered in the inclusion criteria, the results of the current study should be interpreted with caution.

BACKGROUND: Integration of information between multiple cortical regions of the pain neuromatrix is thought to underpin pain modulation. Although altered processing in the primary motor (M1) and sensory (S1) cortices is implicated in separate studies, the simultaneous changes in and the relationship between these regions are unknown yet. The primary aim was to assess the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over superficial regions of the pain neuromatrix on M1 and S1 excitability. The secondary aim was to investigate how M1 and S1 excitability changes affect sensory (STh) and pain thresholds (PTh). METHODS: Twelve healthy participants received 20 min a-tDCS under five different conditions including a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCS of S1, a-tDCS of DLPFC, sham a-tDCS, and no-tDCS. Excitability of dominant M1 and S1 were measured before, immediately, and 30 minutes after intervention respectively. Moreover, STh and PTh to peripheral electrical and mechanical stimulation were evaluated. All outcome measures were assessed at three time-points of measurement by a blind rater. RESULTS: A-tDCS of M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) significantly increased brain excitability in M1 (p < 0.05) for at least 30 min. Following application of a-tDCS over the S1, the amplitude of the N20-P25 component of SEPs increased immediately after the stimulation (p < 0.05), whilst M1 stimulation decreased it. Compared to baseline values, significant STh and PTh increase was observed after a-tDCS of all three stimulated areas. Except in M1 stimulation, there was significant PTh difference between a-tDCS and sham tDCS. CONCLUSION: a-tDCS of M1 is the best spots to enhance brain excitability than a-tDCS of S1 and DLPFC. Surprisingly, a-tDCS of M1 and S1 has diverse effects on S1 and M1 excitability. A-tDCS of M1, S1, and DLPFC increased STh and PTh levels. Given the placebo effects of a-tDCS of M1 in pain perception, our results should be interpreted with caution

Previous researchers have approved the ability of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) to enhance corticospinal excitability (CSE). The primary aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of concurrent stimulation of M1 and a functionally connected cortical site of M1 on CSE modulation. This new technique is called unihemispheric concurrent dual-site a-tDCS (a-tDCSUHCDS). The secondary aim was to investigate the mechanisms underlying the efficacy of this new approach in healthy individuals. In a randomized crossover study, 12 healthy right-handed volunteers received a-tDCS under five conditions: a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-primary sensory cortex (S1), a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-primary visual cortex (V1), and sham a-tDCSUHCDS. Peak-to-peak amplitude of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced MEPs, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were assessed before and four times after each condition. A-tDCSUHCDS conditions induced larger MEPs than conventional a-tDCS. The level of M1 CSE was significantly higher following a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC than other a-tDCSUHCDS conditions (p < 0.001), and lasted for over 24 h. The paired-pulse TMS results after a-tDCS of M1-DLPFC showed significant facilitatory increase and inhibitory change. A-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC increases M1 CSE twofold that of conventional a-tDCS. A-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC enhances the activity of glutamergic mechanisms for at least 24 h. Such long-lasting M1 CSE enhancement induced by a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC could be a valuable finding in clinical scenarios such as learning, motor performance, or pain management. The present study has been registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial at http://www.anzctr.org.au/ with registry number of ACTRN12614000817640.

AIM: To investigate whether hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle affect corticospinal excitability, intracortical inhibition (ICI) or facilitation (ICF) in primary motor cortex, and also whether the hormonal fluctuations have any effect on manual dexterity in neurologically intact women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty volunteers (10 Female, 10 Male) were included in this study. The levels of progesterone and estradiol were measured from saliva during the women's menstrual follicular, ovulation and mid-luteal phases. Motor evoked potentials were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle. Single and paired-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) were delivered in a block of 20 stimuli. With paired-pulse technique, 3ms and 10ms inter-stimulus intervals were used to assess ICI and ICF, respectively. The Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT) was completed in each session before the TMS assessments. Male participants were tested at similar time intervals as female participants. RESULTS: Mixed design ANOVA revealed that GPT score in female participants was significantly lower at the mid-luteal phase compared to the ovulation phase (p = 0.017). However, it was not correlated with progesterone or estrogen fluctuations during the menstrual cycle. The results also showed that the effect of phase, sex and the interaction of phase by sex for resting motor threshold, ICI or ICF were not significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Manual dexterity performance fluctuates during the menstrual cycle in neurologically intact women, which might be due to the balance of the neuromodulatory effects of P4 and E2 in the motor cortex during different phases.