scholarly journals Polarity and timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in explicit motor learning

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 800-804 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.J. Stagg ◽  
G. Jayaram ◽  
D. Pastor ◽  
Z.T. Kincses ◽  
P.M. Matthews ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauran Cole ◽  
Adrianna Giuffre ◽  
Patrick Ciechanski ◽  
Helen L. Carlson ◽  
Ephrem Zewdie ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 2119-2126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Naros ◽  
Marc Geyer ◽  
Susanne Koch ◽  
Lena Mayr ◽  
Tabea Ellinger ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mana Biabani ◽  
Michael Farrell ◽  
Maryam Zoghi ◽  
Gary Egan ◽  
Shapour Jaberzadeh

Abstract Crossover designs are used by a high proportion of studies investigating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor learning. These designs necessitate attention to aspects of data collection and analysis to take account of design-related confounds including order, carryover, and period effects. In this systematic review, we appraised the method sections of crossover-designed tDCS studies of motor learning and discussed the strategies adopted to address these factors. A systematic search of 10 databases was performed and 19 research papers, including 21 experimental studies, were identified. Potential risks of bias were addressed in all of the studies, however, not in a rigorous and structured manner. In the data collection phase, unclear methods of randomization, various lengths of washout period, and inconsistency in the counteracting period effect can be observed. In the analytical procedures, the stratification by sequence group was often ignored, and data were treated as if it belongs to a simple repeated-measures design. An inappropriate use of crossover design can seriously affect the findings and therefore the conclusions drawn from tDCS studies on motor learning. The results indicate a pressing need for the development of detailed guidelines for this type of studies to benefit from the advantages of a crossover design.


Neurology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Kirton ◽  
Patrick Ciechanski ◽  
Ephrem Zewdie ◽  
John Andersen ◽  
Alberto Nettel-Aguirre ◽  
...  

Objective:To determine whether the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to intensive therapy increases motor function in children with perinatal stroke and hemiparetic cerebral palsy.Methods:This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Participants were recruited from a population-based cohort with MRI-classified unilateral perinatal stroke, age of 6 to 18 years, and disabling hemiparesis. All completed a goal-directed, peer-supported, 2-week after-school motor learning camp (32 hours of therapy). Participants were randomized 1:1 to 1 mA cathodal tDCS over the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1) for the initial 20 minutes of daily therapy or sham. Primary subjective (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure [COPM]), objective (Assisting Hand Assessment [AHA]), safety, and secondary outcomes were measured at 1 week and 2 months after intervention. Analysis was by intention to treat.Results:Twenty-four participants were randomized (median age 11.8 ± 2.7 years, range 6.7–17.8). COPM performance and satisfaction scores doubled at 1 week with sustained gains at 2 months (p < 0.001). COPM scores increased more with tDCS compared to sham control (p = 0.004). AHA scores demonstrated only mild increases at both time points with no tDCS effects. Procedures were safe and well tolerated with no decrease in either arm function or serious adverse events.Conclusion:tDCS trials appear feasible and safe in hemiparetic children. Lack of change in objective motor function may reflect underdosing of therapy. Marked gains in subjective function with tDCS warrant further study.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02170285.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class II evidence that for children with perinatal stroke and hemiparetic cerebral palsy, the addition of tDCS to moderate-dose motor learning therapy does not significantly improve motor function as measured by the AHA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document