No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) can increase the excitability of hand area of the primary motor cortex (M1). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of tRNS and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the leg motor cortex. Method: Ten healthy subjects received anodal, cathodal tDCS, tRNS and sham stimulation for 10 min using 2 mA intensity during separate experimental sessions. Single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced motor evoked potential (MEP) measurements were used to assess motor cortical excitability changes after the stimulation. Results: Similar to the hand area, we found that both tRNS and anodal tDCS induced an increase of the amplitude of the MEPs. Anodal tDCS induced a constant gradual increase of corticospinal excitability until 60 min post-stimulation, whereas the effect of tRNS was immediate with a duration of 40 min following stimulation. The cathodal tDCS induced decrease in MEP amplitude did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Our results suggest that although the leg area has a deeper position in the cortex compared to the hand area, it can be reached by weak transcranial currents. Both anodal tDCS and tRNS had comparable effect on cortical excitability.

Background Balance impairment in Parkinson’s disease is multifactorial and its changes due to subthalamic stimulation vary in different studies. Objective We aimed to analyze the combination of predictive clinical factors of balance impairment in patients with Parkinson’s disease treated with bilateral subthalamic stimulation for at least one year. Methods We recruited 24 patients with Parkinson’s disease treated with bilateral subthalamic stimulation and 24 healthy controls. They wore an Opal monitor (APDM Inc.) consisting of three-dimensional gyroscopes and accelerometers in the lumbar region. We investigated four stimulation conditions (bilateral stimulation OFF, bilateral stimulation ON, and unilateral right- and left-sided stimulation ON) with four tests: stance on a plain ground with eyes open and closed, stance on a foam platform with eyes open and closed. Age, disease duration, the time elapsed after implantation, levodopa, and stimulation responsiveness were analyzed. The distance of stimulation location from the subthalamic motor center was calculated individually in each plane of the three dimensions. We analyzed the sway values in the four stimulation conditions in the patient group and compared them with the control values. We explored factor combinations (with age as confounder) in the patient group predictive for imbalance with cluster analysis and a machine‐learning‐based multiple regression method. Results Sway combined from the four tasks did not differ in the patients and controls on a group level. The combination of the disease duration, the preoperative levodopa responsiveness, and the stimulation responsiveness predicted individual stimulation-induced static imbalance. The more affected patients had more severe motor symptoms; primarily, the proprioceptive followed by visual sensory feedback loss provoked imbalance in them when switching on the stimulation. Conclusions The duration of the disease, the severity of motor symptoms, the levodopa responsiveness, and additional sensory deficits should be carefully considered during preoperative evaluation to predict subthalamic stimulation-induced imbalance in Parkinson’s disease.