+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Motor cortex-induced plasticity by noninvasive brain stimulation: a comparison between transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation



Motor cortex-induced plasticity by noninvasive brain stimulation: a comparison between transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation



Neuroreport 24(17): 973-975



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.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 054476012

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24100412

DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0000000000000021


Related references

Preconditioning of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence for homeostatic plasticity in the human motor cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 24(13): 3379-3385, 2004

Transcranial direct current stimulation preconditioning modulates the effect of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the human motor cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience 35(1): 119-124, 2012

Preconditioning with transcranial direct current stimulation sensitizes the motor cortex to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation and controls the direction of after-effects. Biological Psychiatry 56(9): 634-639, 2004

Impairment of motor cortex plasticity in Parkinson's disease, as revealed by theta-burst-transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial random noise stimulation. Parkinsonism and Related Disorders 17(4): 297-298, 2011

Non-invasive brain stimulation and computational models in post-stroke aphasic patients: single session of transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. A randomized clinical trial. Sao Paulo Medical Journal 135(5): 475-480, 2017

Effects of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on the Primary Motor Cortex by Online Combined Approach with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Journal of Visualized Experiments 2018(127), 2018

Consensus: Can transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation enhance motor learning and memory formation?. Brain Stimulation 1(4): 363-369, 2010

The effects of combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on motor function in patients with stroke. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 34(6): 915-923, 2016

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in motor rehabilitation after stroke: an update. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 58(4): 220-224, 2016

Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates motor responses evoked by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroscience Letters 522(2): 167-171, 2012

Comparison of the effects of transcranial random noise stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on motor cortical excitability. Journal of Ect 31(1): 67-72, 2016

Noninvasive brain stimulation with transcranial magnetic or direct current stimulation (TMS/tDCS)-From insights into human memory to therapy of its dysfunction. Methods 44(4): 329-337, 2008

Transient tinnitus suppression induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. European Journal of Neurology 13(9): 996-1001, 2006

Diminution of training-induced transient motor cortex plasticity by transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurology 56(8 Supplement 3): A124, April 24, 2001

Non pyramidal descending motor potential activated by cerebellar stimulation comparison with direct motor cortex stimulation and transcranial stimulation. Nichidai Igaku Zasshi 48(3): 243-252, 1989