Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex

被引:595
作者
Wiethoff, Sarah [1 ]
Hamada, Masashi [1 ,2 ]
Rothwell, John C. [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL Inst Neurol, Sobell Dept Motor Neurosci & Movement Disorders, London WC1N 3BG, England
[2] Univ Tokyo, Dept Neurol, Grad Sch Med, Bunkyo Ku, Tokyo 1138655, Japan
关键词
Transcranial direct current stimulation; (TDCS); I-waves; Plasticity; Motor cortex; Facilitation; PAIRED ASSOCIATIVE STIMULATION; THETA-BURST STIMULATION; MAGNETIC STIMULATION; CORTICAL PLASTICITY; CORTICOSPINAL EXCITABILITY; ELECTRIC-FIELDS; SURFACE EMG; MODULATION; POLARIZATION; POTENTIALS;
D O I
10.1016/j.brs.2014.02.003
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Responses to a number of different plasticity-inducing brain stimulation protocols are highly variable. However there is little data available on the variability of response to transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS). Objective: We tested the effects of TDCS over the motor cortex on corticospinal excitability. We also examined whether an individual's response could be predicted from measurements of onset latency of motor evoked potential (MEP) following stimulation with different orientations of monophasic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Methods: Fifty-three healthy subjects participated in a crossover-design. Baseline latency measurements with different coil orientations and MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle prior to the application of 10 min of 2 mA TDCS (0.057 mA/cm(2)). Thirty MEPs were measured every 5 min for up to half an hour after the intervention to assess after-effects on corticospinal excitability. Results: Anodal TDCS at 2 mA facilitated MEPs whereas there was no significant effect of 2 mA cathodal TDCS. A two-step cluster analysis suggested that approximately 50% individuals had only a minor, or no response to TDCS whereas the remainder had a facilitatory effect to both forms of stimulation. There was a significant correlation between the latency difference of MEPs (anterior-posterior stimulation minus latero-medial stimulation) and the response to anodal, but not cathodal TDCS. Conclusions: The large variability in response to these TDCS protocols is in line with similar studies using other forms of non-invasive brain stimulation. The effects highlight the need to develop more robust protocols, and understand the individual factors that determine responsiveness. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:468 / 475
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Resting state functional connectivity measures correlate with the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation
    Hordacre, Brenton
    Moezzi, Bahar
    Goldsworthy, Mitchell R.
    Rogasch, Nigel C.
    Graetz, Lynton J.
    Ridding, Michael C.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2017, 45 (06) : 837 - 845
  • [32] Trains of transcranial direct current stimulation antagonize motor cortex hypoexcitability induced by acute hemicerebellectomy Laboratory investigation
    Taib, Nordeyn Oulad Ben
    Manto, Mario
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2009, 111 (04) : 796 - 806
  • [33] Measures to Predict The Individual Variability of Corticospinal Responses Following Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Nuzum, Nathan D.
    Hendy, Ashlee M.
    Russell, Aaron P.
    Teo, Wei-Peng
    FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 10
  • [34] Parietal transcranial direct current stimulation modulates primary motor cortex excitability
    Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe Nathzidy
    Batsikadze, Giorgi
    Molero-Chamizo, Andres
    Paulus, Walter
    Kuo, Min-Fang
    Nitsche, Michael A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2015, 41 (06) : 845 - 855
  • [35] Rules of application and mode of action of transcranial direct current stimulation in neurorehabilitation: primary motor cortex
    Polanowska, Katarzyna
    Seniow, Joanna
    Czlonkowska, Anna
    NEUROLOGIA I NEUROCHIRURGIA POLSKA, 2010, 44 (02) : 172 - 180
  • [36] Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex on Visceral Pain in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Ibrahim, Nagwa Mostafa
    Abdelhameed, Khaled Mohamed
    Kamal, Shereen Mamdouh Mohamed
    Khedr, Eman Mohamed Hussein
    Kotb, Hassan Ibrahim Mohamed
    PAIN MEDICINE, 2018, 19 (03) : 550 - 560
  • [37] Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of motor cortex does not ameliorate spasticity in multiple sclerosis
    Iodice, Rosa
    Dubbioso, Raffaele
    Ruggiero, Lucia
    Santoro, Lucio
    Manganelli, Fiore
    RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2015, 33 (04) : 487 - 492
  • [38] Response Variability in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Why Sex Matters
    Rudroff, Thorsten
    Workman, Craig D.
    Fietsam, Alexandra C.
    Kamholz, John
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY, 2020, 11
  • [39] Differences in high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor hotspot versus the premotor cortex on motor network excitability
    Lefebvre, Stephanie
    Jann, Kay
    Schmiesing, Allie
    Ito, Kaori
    Jog, Mayank
    Schweighofer, Nicolas
    Wang, Danny J. J.
    Liew, Sook-Lei
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2019, 9 (1)
  • [40] Inter- and Intra-individual Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) at Varying Current Intensities
    Chew, Taariq
    Ho, Kerrie-Anne
    Loo, Colleen K.
    BRAIN STIMULATION, 2015, 8 (06) : 1130 - 1137