Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)-induced changes in motor function in chronic stroke patients are associated with renormalisation of motor-related cortical activity.

NeuroImage ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. S116
Author(s):  
CJ Stagg ◽  
U Kischka ◽  
PM Matthews ◽  
H Johansen-Berg
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Satow ◽  
Tomotaka Kawase ◽  
Atsushi Kitamura ◽  
Yuki Kajitani ◽  
Takuya Yamaguchi ◽  
...  

Background: Walking ability is important in stroke patients to maintain daily life. Nevertheless, its improvement is limited with conventional physical therapy in chronic stage. We report the case of a chronic stroke patient showing a remarkable improvement in gait function after a new neurorehabilitation protocol using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Case Presentation: A 62-year-old male with left putaminal hemorrhage suffered from severe right hemiparesis. He could move by himself with a wheelchair 1 year after the ictus. Anodal tDCS at the vertex (2 mA, 20 min) with NMES at the anterior tibialis muscle had been applied for 3 weeks. The Timed Up and Go test and 10-meter walk test improved after the intervention, which had been maintained for at least 1 month. Conclusion: This single case suggests the possibility that tDCS with NMES could be a new rehabilitation approach to improve the gait ability in chronic stroke patients.


Author(s):  
Milou J. M. Coppens ◽  
Wouter H. A. Staring ◽  
Jorik Nonnekes ◽  
Alexander C. H. Geurts ◽  
Vivian Weerdesteyn

Abstract Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown promise for rehabilitation after stroke. Ipsilesional anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) over the motor cortex increases corticospinal excitability, while contralesional cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) restores interhemispheric balance, both resulting in offline improved reaction times of delayed voluntary upper-extremity movements. We aimed to investigate whether tDCS would also have a beneficial effect on delayed leg motor responses after stroke. In addition, we identified whether variability in tDCS effects was associated with the level of leg motor function. Methods In a cross-over design, 13 people with chronic stroke completed three 15-min sessions of anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex on separate days in an order balanced across participants. Directly after stimulation, participants performed a comprehensive set of lower-extremity tasks involving the paretic tibialis anterior (TA): voluntary ankle-dorsiflexion, gait initiation, and backward balance perturbation. For all tasks, TA onset latencies were determined. In addition, leg motor function was determined by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment – leg score (FMA-L). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to reveal tDCS effects on reaction times. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish the relation between tDCS effects and leg motor function. Results For all tasks, TA reaction times did not differ across tDCS sessions. For gait initiation and backward balance perturbation, differences between sham and active stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) did not correlate with leg motor function. Yet, for ankle dorsiflexion, individual reaction time differences between c-tDCS and sham were strongly associated with FMA-L, with more severely impaired patients exhibiting slower paretic reaction times following c-tDCS. Conclusion We found no evidence for offline tDCS-induced benefits. Interestingly, we found that c-tDCS may have unfavorable effects on voluntary control of the paretic leg in severely impaired patients with chronic stroke. This finding points at potential vicarious control from the unaffected hemisphere to the paretic leg. The absence of tDCS-induced effects on gait and balance, two functionally relevant tasks, shows that such motor behavior is inadequately stimulated by currently used tDCS applications. Trial registration The study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5684; April 13th, 2016).


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena L. Pavlova ◽  
Påvel Lindberg ◽  
Amirah Khan ◽  
Sigurd Ruschkowski ◽  
Michael A. Nitsche ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 295-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Hamoudi ◽  
Heidi M. Schambra ◽  
Brita Fritsch ◽  
Annika Schoechlin-Marx ◽  
Cornelius Weiller ◽  
...  

Background. Motor training alone or combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) positioned over the motor cortex (M1) improves motor function in chronic stroke. Currently, understanding of how tDCS influences the process of motor skill learning after stroke is lacking. Objective. To assess the effects of tDCS on the stages of motor skill learning and on generalization to untrained motor function. Methods. In this randomized, sham-controlled, blinded study of 56 mildly impaired chronic stroke patients, tDCS (anode over the ipsilesional M1 and cathode on the contralesional forehead) was applied during 5 days of training on an unfamiliar, challenging fine motor skill task (sequential visual isometric pinch force task). We assessed online and offline learning during the training period and retention over the following 4 months. We additionally assessed the generalization to untrained tasks. Results. With training alone (sham tDCS group), patients acquired a novel motor skill. This skill improved online, remained stable during the offline periods and was largely retained at follow-up. When tDCS was added to training (real tDCS group), motor skill significantly increased relative to sham, mostly in the online stage. Long-term retention was not affected by tDCS. Training effects generalized to untrained tasks, but those performance gains were not enhanced further by tDCS. Conclusions. Training of an unfamiliar skill task represents a strategy to improve fine motor function in chronic stroke. tDCS augments motor skill learning, but its additive effect is restricted to the trained skill.


2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Yeol Lee ◽  
Hee-Jung Cheon ◽  
Kyoung Jae Yoon ◽  
Won Hyuk Chang ◽  
Yun-Hee Kim

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document