Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can increase cortical excitability of a targeted brain area, which may affect endurance exercise performance. However, optimal electrode placement for tDCS remains unclear. We tested the effect of two different tDCS electrode montages for improving exercise performance. Nine subjects underwent a control (CON), placebo (SHAM) and two different tDCS montage sessions in a randomized design. In one tDCS session, the anodal electrode was placed over the left motor cortex and the cathodal on contralateral forehead (HEAD), while for the other montage the anodal electrode was placed over the left motor cortex and cathodal electrode above the shoulder (SHOULDER). tDCS was delivered for 10min at 2.0mA, after which participants performed an isometric time to exhaustion (TTE) test of the right knee extensors. Peripheral and central neuromuscular parameters were assessed at baseline, after tDCS application and after TTE. Heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and leg muscle exercise-induced muscle pain (PAIN) were monitored during the TTE. TTE was longer and RPE lower in the SHOULDER condition (P<0.05). Central and peripheral parameters, and HR and PAIN did not present any differences between conditions after tDCS stimulation (P>0.05). In all conditions maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) significantly decreased after the TTE (P<0.05) while motor-evoked potential area (MEP) increased after TTE (P<0.05). These findings demonstrate that SHOULDER montage is more effective than HEAD montage to improve endurance performance, likely through avoiding the negative effects of the cathode on excitability.

To establish whether acetaminophen improves performance of self-paced exercise through the reduction of perceived pain, 13 trained male cyclists performed a self-paced 10-mile (16.1 km) cycle time trial (TT) following the ingestion of either acetaminophen (ACT) or a placebo (PLA), administered in randomized double-blind design. TT were completed in a significantly faster time (t(12) = 2.55, P < 0.05) under the ACT condition (26 min 15 s +/- 1 min 36 s vs. 26 min 45 s +/- 2 min 2 s). Power output (PO) was higher during the middle section of the TT in the ACT condition, resulting in a higher mean PO (P < 0.05) (265 +/- 12 vs. 255 +/- 15 W). Blood lactate concentration (B[La]) and heart rate (HR) were higher in the ACT condition (B[La] = 6.1 +/- 2.9 mmol/l; HR = 87 +/- 7%max) than in the PLA condition (B[La] = 5.1 +/- 2.6 mmol/l; HR = 84 +/- 9%max) (P < 0.05). No significant difference in rating of perceived exertion (ACT = 15.5 +/- 0.2; PLA = 15.7 +/- 0.2) or perceived pain (ACT = 5.6 +/- 0.2; PLA = 5.5 +/- 0.2) (P > 0.05) was observed. Using acetaminophen, participants cycled at a higher mean PO, with an increased HR and B[La], but without changes in perceived pain or exertion. Consequently, completion time was significantly faster. These findings support the notion that exercise is regulated by pain perception, and increased pain tolerance can improve exercise capacity.

Our findings demonstrate that tDCS with the anode over both motor cortices using a bilateral extracephalic reference improves endurance performance.

The progressively improving completion times in the EXP group show that distance feedback is not essential in developing an appropriate pacing strategy. Prior experience of an unknown distance appears to allow the creation of an internal, relative distance that is used to establish a pacing strategy.

The physical limits of the human performance have been the object of study for a considerable time. Most of the research has focused on the locomotor muscles, lungs, and heart. As a consequence, much of the contemporary literature has ignored the importance of the brain in the regulation of exercise performance. With the introduction and development of new non-invasive devices, the knowledge regarding the behavior of the central nervous system during exercise has advanced. A first step has been provided from studies involving neuroimaging techniques where the role of specific brain areas have been identified during isolated muscle or whole-body exercise. Furthermore, a new interesting approach has been provided by studies involving non-invasive techniques to manipulate specific brain areas. These techniques most commonly involve the use of an electrical or magnetic field crossing the brain. In this regard, there has been emerging literature demonstrating the possibility to influence exercise outcomes in healthy people following stimulation of specific brain areas. Specifically, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been recently used prior to exercise in order to improve exercise performance under a wide range of exercise types. In this review article, we discuss the evidence provided from experimental studies involving tDCS. The aim of this review is to provide a critical analysis of the experimental studies investigating the application of tDCS prior to exercise and how it influences brain function and performance. Finally, we provide a critical opinion of the usage of tDCS for exercise enhancement. This will consequently progress the current knowledge base regarding the effect of tDCS on exercise and provides both a methodological and theoretical foundation on which future research can be based.

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

As SPV is a closed-loop test (10-min duration) that allows subjects to self-pace their work rate, it disregards the need for experimenters to estimate starting work rates, stage lengths and increments in order to bring about volitional exhaustion in 8-10 min. The observation that the SPV may also elicit higher VO(2max) values than a traditional test warrants further research in this area and its consideration as standard measure to elicit VO(2max).

These findings demonstrate that stimulation of the M1 using tDCS does not induce analgesia during exercise, suggesting that the processing of pain produced via classic measures of experimental pain (i.e., a CPT) is different to that of EIP. These results provide important methodological advancement in developing the use of tDCS in exercise.