scholarly journals Human primary somatosensory cortex is differentially involved in vibrotaction and nociception

2017 ◽  
Vol 118 (1) ◽  
pp. 317-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cédric Lenoir ◽  
Gan Huang ◽  
Yves Vandermeeren ◽  
Samar Marie Hatem ◽  
André Mouraux
Keyword(s):  
Somatosensory Cortex ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Primary Somatosensory Cortex ◽  
High Definition ◽  
Somatosensory Input ◽  
Differential Involvement ◽  
Somatosensory Stimuli ◽  
Stimulation Of

The role of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) in vibrotaction is well established. In contrast, its involvement in nociception is still debated. Here we test whether S1 is similarly involved in the processing of nonnociceptive and nociceptive somatosensory input in humans by comparing the aftereffects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of S1 on the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by nonnociceptive and nociceptive somatosensory stimuli delivered to the ipsilateral and contralateral hands. Cathodal HD-tDCS significantly affected the responses to nonnociceptive somatosensory stimuli delivered to the contralateral hand: both early-latency ERPs from within S1 (N20 wave elicited by transcutaneous electrical stimulation of median nerve) and late-latency ERPs elicited outside S1 (N120 wave elicited by short-lasting mechanical vibrations delivered to index fingertip, thought to originate from bilateral operculo-insular and cingulate cortices). These results support the notion that S1 constitutes an obligatory relay for the cortical processing of nonnociceptive tactile input originating from the contralateral hemibody. Contrasting with this asymmetric effect of HD-tDCS on the responses to nonnociceptive somatosensory input, HD-tDCS over the sensorimotor cortex led to a bilateral and symmetric reduction of the magnitude of the N240 wave of nociceptive laser-evoked potentials elicited by stimulation of the hand dorsum. Taken together, our results demonstrate in humans a differential involvement of S1 in vibrotaction and nociception. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Whereas the role of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) in vibrotaction is well established, its involvement in nociception remains strongly debated. By assessing, in healthy volunteers, the effect of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over S1, we demonstrate a differential involvement of S1 in vibrotaction and nociception.

scholarly journals Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex on vibrotactile detection and discrimination

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (4) ◽  
pp. 1978-1987 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Labbé ◽  
El-Mehdi Meftah ◽  
C. Elaine Chapman
Keyword(s):  
Somatosensory Cortex ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Middle Finger ◽  
Primary Somatosensory Cortex ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Neuronal Mechanisms ◽  
Vibrotactile Perception ◽  
Stimulation Of

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of primary somatosensory cortex (S1) has been shown to enhance tactile spatial acuity, but there is little information as to the underlying neuronal mechanisms. We examined vibrotactile perception on the distal phalanx of the middle finger before, during, and after contralateral S1 tDCS [a-, cathodal (c)-, and sham (s)-tDCS]. The experiments tested our shift-gain hypothesis, which predicted that a-tDCS would decrease vibrotactile detection and discrimination thresholds (leftward shift of the stimulus-response function with increased gain/slope) relative to s-tDCS, whereas c-tDCS would have the opposite effects (relative to s-tDCS). The results showed that weak a-tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) led to a reduction in both vibrotactile detection and discrimination thresholds to 73–76% of baseline during the application of the stimulation in subjects categorized as responders. These effects persisted after the end of a-tDCS but were absent 30 min later. Most, but not all, subjects showed a decrease in threshold (8/12 for detection; 9/12 for discrimination). Intersubject variability was explained by a ceiling effect in the discrimination task. c-tDCS had no significant effect on either detection or discrimination threshold. Taken together, our results supported our shift-gain hypothesis for a-tDCS but not c-tDCS.

High-definition transcranial direct-current stimulation of the right M1 further facilitates left M1 excitability during crossed facilitation

2018 ◽  
Vol 119 (4) ◽  
pp. 1266-1272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Cabibel ◽  
Makii Muthalib ◽  
Wei-Peng Teo ◽  
Stephane Perrey
Keyword(s):  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Single Pulse ◽  
High Definition ◽  
Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Stimulation Of

The crossed-facilitation (CF) effect refers to when motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) evoked in the relaxed muscles of one arm are facilitated by contraction of the opposite arm. The aim of this study was to determine whether high-definition transcranial direct-current stimulation (HD-tDCS) applied to the right primary motor cortex (M1) controlling the left contracting arm [50% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)] would further facilitate CF toward the relaxed right arm. Seventeen healthy right-handed subjects participated in an anodal and cathodal or sham HD-tDCS session of the right M1 (2 mA for 20 min) separated by at least 48 h. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to elicit MEPs and cortical silent periods (CSPs) from the left M1 at baseline and 10 min into and after right M1 HD-tDCS. At baseline, compared with resting, CF (i.e., right arm resting, left arm 50% MVIC) increased left M1 MEP amplitudes (+97%) and decreased CSPs (−11%). The main novel finding was that right M1 HD-tDCS further increased left M1 excitability (+28.3%) and inhibition (+21%) from baseline levels during CF of the left M1, with no difference between anodal and cathodal HD-tDCS sessions. No modulation of CSP or MEP was observed during sham HD-tDCS sessions. Our findings suggest that CF of the left M1 combined with right M1 anodal or cathodal HD-tDCS further facilitated interhemispheric interactions during CF from the right M1 (contracting left arm) toward the left M1 (relaxed right arm), with effects on both excitatory and inhibitory processing. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study shows modulation of the nonstimulated left M1 by right M1 HD-tDCS combined with crossed facilitation, which was probably achieved through modulation of interhemispheric interactions.

scholarly journals Testing the role of cognitive inhibition in physical endurance using high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over the prefrontal cortex

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gauthier Denis ◽  
Raphael Zory ◽  
Rémi Radel
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Cognitive Task ◽  
Physical Endurance ◽  
Cognitive Inhibition ◽  
High Definition ◽  
Physical Effort ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation

AbstractThe aim of this study was to clarify the role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in physical effort regulation. We hypothesized that the PFC would be progressively involved in physical endurance through the engagement of cognitive inhibition, which would be necessary to maintain effort by inhibiting fatigue-related cues. This hypothesis was examined using a double-blind, sham-controlled, within-subjects study (N = 20) using high-definition (HD) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Participants had to maintain a knee extensor contraction at 30% of their maximal force while simultaneously performing an Eriksen flanker task to evaluate their inhibition performance during the task. Anodal stimulation of the dlPFC influenced response to the cognitive task during exercise, as seen by slower response times and better accuracy. However, it did not lead to any measureable improvement in cognitive inhibition and did not influence endurance time. There was no correlation between cognitive inhibition and the maintenance of physical effort. This result could be explained by some methodological limitations of our protocol, and we also provide alternative explanations for the contribution of the PFC in physical endurance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document