Past evidence has shown that motor cortical stimulation with invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation is effective to relieve central pain. Here we aimed to study the effects of another, very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation--transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)--on pain control in patients with central pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients were randomized to receive sham or active motor tDCS (2mA, 20 min for 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the pain using the visual analogue scale for pain, Clinician Global Impression and Patient Global Assessment. Safety was assessed with a neuropsychological battery and confounders with the evaluation of depression and anxiety changes. There was a significant pain improvement after active anodal stimulation of the motor cortex, but not after sham stimulation. These results were not confounded by depression or anxiety changes. Furthermore, cognitive performance was not significantly changed throughout the trial in both treatment groups. The results of our study suggest that this new approach of cortical stimulation can be effective to control pain in patients with spinal cord lesion. We discuss potential mechanisms for pain amelioration after tDCS, such as a secondary modulation of thalamic nuclei activity.

Recovery of function after a stroke is determined by a balance of activity in the neural network involving both the affected and the unaffected brain hemispheres. Increased activity in the affected hemisphere can promote recovery, while excessive activity in the unaffected hemisphere may represent a maladaptive strategy. We therefore investigated whether reduction of the excitability in the unaffected hemisphere by cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation could result in motor performance improvement in stroke patients. We compared these results with excitability-enhancing anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the affected hemisphere and sham transcranial direct current stimulation. Both cathodal stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere and anodal stimulation of the affected hemisphere (but not sham transcranial direct current stimulation) improved motor performance significantly. These results suggest that the appropriate modulation of bihemispheric brain structures can promote motor function recovery.

Electrical stimulation of deep brain structures, such as globus pallidus and subthalamic nucleus, is widely accepted as a therapeutic tool for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Cortical stimulation either with epidural implanted electrodes or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be associated with motor function enhancement in PD. We aimed to study the effects of another noninvasive technique of cortical brain stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on motor function and motor-evoked potential (MEP) characteristics of PD patients. We tested tDCS using different electrode montages [anodal stimulation of primary motor cortex (M1), cathodal stimulation of M1, anodal stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and sham-stimulation] and evaluated the effects on motor function--as indexed by Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), simple reaction time (sRT) and Purdue Pegboard test--and on corticospinal motor excitability (MEP characteristics). All experiments were performed in a double-blinded manner. Anodal stimulation of M1 was associated with a significant improvement of motor function compared to sham-stimulation in the UPDRS (P < 0.001) and sRT (P = 0.019). This effect was not observed for cathodal stimulation of M1 or anodal stimulation of DLPFC. Furthermore, whereas anodal stimulation of M1 significantly increased MEP amplitude and area, cathodal stimulation of M1 significantly decreased them. There was a trend toward a significant correlation between motor function improvement after M1 anodal-tDCS and MEP area increase. These results confirm and extend the notion that cortical brain stimulation might improve motor function in patients with PD.

This meta-analysis shows that two different techniques of brain stimulation of motor cortex--invasive and noninvasive--can exert a significant effect on pain in patients with chronic pain. We discuss potential reasons that invasive brain stimulation showed a larger effect in this meta-analysis. Our findings encourage continuation of research in this area and highlight the need for well-designed clinical trials to define the role of brain stimulation in pain management.

The development of non-invasive techniques of cortical stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), has opened new potential avenues for the treatment of neuropsychiatric diseases. We hypothesized that an increase in the activity in the motor cortex by cortical stimulation would increase its inhibitory influence on spinal excitability through the corticospinal tract and, thus, reduce the hyperactivity of the gamma and alpha neurons, improving spasticity. Seventeen participants (eight males, nine females; mean age 9y 1mo [SD 3y 2mo]) with cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia were randomized to receive sham, active 1Hz, or active 5Hz repetitive TMS of the primary motor cortex. Stimulation was applied for 5 consecutive days (90% of motor threshold). The results showed that there was a significant reduction of spasticity after 5Hz, but not sham or 1Hz, stimulation as indexed by the degree of passive movement; however this was not evident when using the Ashworth scale, although a trend for improvement was seen for elbow movement. The safety evaluation showed that stimulation with either 1Hz or 5Hz did not result in any adverse events as compared with sham stimulation. Results of this trial provide initial evidence to support further trials exploring the use of cortical stimulation in the treatment of spasticity. Spasticity is a common symptom in neurological disorders. One of the causes of spasticity is motor cortex damage that leads to a decrease in the cortical input to the corticospinal tract, resulting in a disinhibition of spinal, segmental excitabili-ty and an increase in the muscle tone. 1 This increase in muscle tone is marked by a velocity-dependent enhancement of the stretch reflex. 2-4 The role of the motor cortex in the development of spastici-ty has been extensively demonstrated in primate studies. Specifically, ablation of Brodmann's area 4 in macaque monkeys results in persistent spasticity in addition to partial motor impairment, 5 and bilateral removal of Brodmann's areas 4, 6, and 8, as well as the posterior parietal cortex (area 7) in infant monkeys leads to development of spastic paraplegia. 6 In humans, patients undergoing surgery for intractable epilepsy revealed the development of spasticity in cases of extensive motor or premotor ablations. 7 Cerebral palsy (CP) is a common cause of spasticity. CP results from a permanent static lesion of the cerebral motor cortex that occurs before, at, or within 2 years of birth. 8 The loss of descending inhibitory input through corticospinal tracts results in an increase in the excitability of gamma and alpha neurons, resulting in spasticity. 9 Spasticity is an important contributor to the quality of life of patients with CP as it leads to musculoskeletal complications such as contractures, pain, and subluxation. 10 Furthermore, the elimination of spasticity brings motor function improvement for these patients. 10 Although many therapies to reduce and control spasticity are available, they are associated with several disadvantages, such ...