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
  • [41] Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex over Multiple Days Improves Motor Learning of a Complex Overhand Throwing Task
    Pantovic, Milan
    de Albuquerque, Lidio Lima
    Mastrantonio, Sierra
    Pomerantz, Austin S.
    Wilkins, Erik W.
    Riley, Zachary A.
    Guadagnoli, Mark A.
    Poston, Brach
    [J]. BRAIN SCIENCES, 2023, 13 (10)
  • [42] Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over right posterior parietal cortex on attention function in healthy young adults
    Lo, On-Yee
    van Donkelaar, Paul
    Chou, Li-Shan
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2019, 49 (12) : 1623 - 1631
  • [43] Intra-Subject Consistency and Reliability of Response Following 2 mA Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Dyke, Katherine
    Kim, Soyoung
    Jackson, Georgina M.
    Jackson, Stephen R.
    [J]. BRAIN STIMULATION, 2016, 9 (06) : 819 - 825
  • [44] The Effect of Brain Hemisphere Stimulation and How to Specialize Motor Task Programming: A Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Study
    Teymuri Kheravi, Mostafa
    Saberi Kakhki, Alireza
    Taheri, Hamidreza
    Ghanaei Chamanabad, Ali
    Darainy, Mohammad
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES-TURKISH, 2017, 34 (03): : 252 - 264
  • [45] No Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Motor Cortex on Response-Related ERPs during a Conflict Task
    Conley, Alexander C.
    Fulham, W. R.
    Marquez, Jodie L.
    Parsons, Mark W.
    Karayanidis, Frini
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 10 : 13
  • [46] Transcranial direct current stimulation to the parietal cortex in hemispatial neglect: A feasibility study
    Smit, Miranda
    Schutter, Dennis J. L. G.
    Nijboer, Tanja C. W.
    Visser-Meily, Johanna M. A.
    Kappelle, L. Jaap
    Kant, Neeltje
    Penninx, Janne
    Dijkerman, H. Chris
    [J]. NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2015, 74 : 152 - 161
  • [47] No Modulation of Visual Cortex Excitability by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
    Brueckner, Sabrina
    Kammer, Thomas
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (12):
  • [48] Electroencephalographic analysis of brain activity after interventions with transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex: a systematic review
    Lopes, Jamile Benite Palma
    Miziara, Isabela Marques
    Kahani, Danial
    Cordeiro, Lorraine Barbosa
    Fonseca Junior, Paulo Roberto
    Lazzari, Roberta Delasta
    Naves, Eduardo Lazaro Martins
    Conway, Bernard Arthur
    Oliveira, Claudia Santos
    [J]. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, 2022, 30 (01) : 63 - 79
  • [49] Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on the excitability of the leg motor cortex
    Jeffery, Dean T.
    Norton, Jonathan A.
    Roy, Francois D.
    Gorassini, Monica A.
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 2007, 182 (02) : 281 - 287
  • [50] Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on the excitability of the leg motor cortex
    Dean T. Jeffery
    Jonathan A. Norton
    Francois D. Roy
    Monica A. Gorassini
    [J]. Experimental Brain Research, 2007, 182 : 281 - 287