Motor cortex-induced plasticity by noninvasive brain stimulation: a comparison between transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
35
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2013
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Autores
ADEYEMO, Bamidele O.
MEDEIROS, Liciane F.
MIRAVAL, Forella
GAGLIARDI, Rubens J.
FREGNI, Felipe
Citação
NEUROREPORT, v.24, n.17, p.973-975, 2013
Resumo
The aim of this study was to test and compare the effects of a within-subject design of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) [coupled with sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)] and tDCS (coupled with sham rTMS) on the motor cortex excitability and also compare the results against sham tDCS/sham rTMS. We conducted a double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, cross-over trial. Eleven right-handed, healthy individuals (five women, mean age: 39.8 years, SD 13.4) received the three interventions (cross-over design) in a randomized order: (a) high-frequency (HF) rTMS (+sham tDCS), (b) anodal tDCS (+sham rTMS), and (c) sham stimulation (sham rTMS+sham tDCS). Cortical excitability measurements [motor threshold, motor evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation and inhibition, and transcallosal inhibition] and motor behavioral assessments were used as outcome measures. Between-group analysis of variance showed that MEP amplitude after HF rTMS was significantly higher than MEP amplitude after anodal tDCS (P=0.001). Post-hoc analysis showed a significant increase in MEP amplitude after HF rTMS (25.3%, P=0.036) and a significant decrease in MEP amplitude after anodal tDCS (-32.7%, P=0.001). There was a similar increase in motor function as indexed by Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test in the two active groups compared with sham stimulation. In conclusion, here, we showed that although both techniques induced similar motor gains, they induce opposing results in cortical excitability. HF rTMS is associated with an increase in corticospinal excitability, whereas 20 min of tDCS induces the opposite effect. We discuss potential implications of these results to future clinical experiments using rTMS or tDCS for motor function enhancement. (C) 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Palavras-chave
cortical excitability, neuroplasticity, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation
Referências
- Adeyemo BO, 2012, FRONT PSYCHIAT, V3, P1
- Boggio PS, 2008, EUR J NEUROL, V15, P1124, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02270.x
- Boggio PS, 2006, NEUROSCI LETT, V404, P232, DOI 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.05.051
- Fregni F, 2007, NAT CLIN PRACT NEURO, V3, P383, DOI 10.1038/ncpneuro0530
- Fregni F, 2011, EUR J PAIN, V15, P53, DOI 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.08.002
- Fregni F, 2005, NEUROREPORT, V16, P1551, DOI 10.1097/01.wnr.0000177010.44602.5e
- Groppa S, 2012, CLIN NEUROPHYSIOL, V123, P858, DOI 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.010
- Monte-Silva K, 2013, BRAIN STIMUL, V6, P424, DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.011
- Nitsche MA, 2005, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V568, P291, DOI 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.092429
- Nitsche MA, 2000, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V527, P633, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x