Transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex on postoperative pain and spontaneous oscillatory electroencephalographic activity following lumbar spine surgery: A pilot study

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 605-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naifu Jiang ◽  
Guangsheng Li ◽  
Jinsong Wei ◽  
Bo Wei ◽  
Frank F. Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Motor Cortex ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Electroencephalographic Activity ◽  
Stimulation Of

scholarly journals Comparison of repeated transcranial stimulation and transcranial direct-current stimulation on primary motor cortex excitability and inhibition: A pilot study

2018 ◽  
pp. 59-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Cabibel ◽  
Makii Muthalib ◽  
Jérôme Froger ◽  
Stéphane Perrey
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Motor Cortex ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
High Definition ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Motor Cortex Excitability ◽  
The Right

Repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a well-known clinical neuromodulation technique, but transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is rapidly growing interest for neurorehabilitation applications. Both methods (contralesional hemisphere inhibitory low-frequency: LF-rTMS or lesional hemisphere excitatory anodal: a-tDCS) have been employed to modify the interhemispheric imbalance following stroke. The aim of this pilot study was to compare aHD-tDCS (anodal high-definition tDCS) of the left M1 (2 mA, 20 min) and LF-rTMS of the right M1 (1 Hz, 20 min) to enhance excitability and reduce inhibition of the left primary motor cortex (M1) in five healthy subjects. Single-pulse TMS was used to elicit resting and active (low level muscle contraction, 5% of maximal electromyographic signal) motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and cortical silent periods (CSPs) from the right and left extensor carpi radialis muscles at Baseline, immediately and 20 min (Post-Stim-20) after the end of each stimulation protocol. LF-rTMS or aHD-tDCS significantly increased right M1 resting and active MEP amplitude at Post-Stim-20 without any CSP modulation and with no difference between methods. In conclusion, this pilot study reported unexpected M1 excitability changes, which most likely stems from variability, which is a major concern in the field to consider.

Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex improves selective muscle activation in the ipsilateral arm

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 2937-2942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alana B. McCambridge ◽  
Lynley V. Bradnam ◽  
Cathy M. Stinear ◽  
Winston D. Byblow
Keyword(s):  
Motor Cortex ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Muscle Activation ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Selectivity Ratio ◽  
Direct Current Stimulation ◽  
Antagonist Muscles ◽  
Stimulation Of

Proximal upper limb muscles are represented bilaterally in primary motor cortex. Goal-directed upper limb movement requires precise control of proximal and distal agonist and antagonist muscles. Failure to suppress antagonist muscles can lead to abnormal movement patterns, such as those commonly experienced in the proximal upper limb after stroke. We examined whether noninvasive brain stimulation of primary motor cortex could be used to improve selective control of the ipsilateral proximal upper limb. Thirteen healthy participants performed isometric left elbow flexion by contracting biceps brachii (BB; agonist) and left forearm pronation (BB antagonist) before and after 20 min of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) or sham tDCS of left M1. During the tasks, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in left BB were acquired using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation of right M1 150–270 ms before muscle contraction. As expected, left BB MEPs were facilitated before flexion and suppressed before pronation. After c-tDCS, left BB MEP amplitudes were reduced compared with sham stimulation, before pronation but not flexion, indicating that c-tDCS enhanced selective muscle activation of the ipsilateral BB in a task-specific manner. The potential for c-tDCS to improve BB antagonist control correlated with BB MEP amplitude for pronation relative to flexion, expressed as a selectivity ratio. This is the first demonstration that selective muscle activation in the proximal upper limb can be improved after c-tDCS of ipsilateral M1 and that the benefits of c-tDCS for selective muscle activation may be most effective in cases where activation strategies are already suboptimal. These findings may have relevance for the use of tDCS in rehabilitation after stroke.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document