Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a representative non-invasive brain stimulation method (NIBS). tDCS increases cortical excitability not only in healthy individuals, but also in stroke patients where it contributes to motor function improvement. Recently, two additional types of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) methods have been introduced that may also prove beneficial for stimulating cortical excitability; these are transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). However, comparison of tDCS with tRNS and tACS, in terms of efficacy in cortical excitability alteration, has not been reported thus far. We compared the efficacy of the three different tES methods for increasing cortical excitability using the same subject population and same current intensity. Fifteen healthy subjects participated in this study. Similar stimulation patterns (1.0 mA and 10 min) were used for the three conditions of stimulation (tDCS, tRNS, and tACS). Cortical excitability was explored via single-pulse TMS elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Compared with pre-measurements, MEPs significantly increased with tDCS, tACS, and tRNS (p < 0.05). Compared with sham measurements, significant increases in MEPs were also observed with tRNS and tACS (p < 0.05), but not with tDCS. In addition, a significant correlation of the mean stimulation effect was observed between tRNS and tACS (p = 0.019, r = 0.598). tRNS induced a significant increase in MEP compared with the Pre or Sham at all time points. tRNS resulted in the largest significant increase in MEPs. These findings suggest that tRNS is the most effective tES method and should be considered as part of a treatment plan for improving motor function in stroke patients.
Selective afferent activation can be used to improve somatosensory function, possibly by altering cortical inhibitory circuit activity. Peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) is widely used to induce selective afferent activation, and its effect may depend on PES intensity. Therefore, we investigated the effects of high- and low-intensity PES applied to the right index finger on tactile discrimination performance and cortical somatosensory-evoked potential paired-pulse depression (SEP-PPD) in 25 neurologically healthy subjects. In Experiment 1, a grating orientation task (GOT) was performed before and immediately after local high- and low-intensity PES (both delivered as 1-s, 20-Hz trains of 0.2-ms electrical pulses at 5-s intervals). In Experiment 2, PPD of SEP components N20/P25_SEP-PPD, N20_SEP-PPD and P25_SEP-PPD, respectively, were assessed before and immediately after high- and low-intensity PES. Improved GOT discrimination performance after high-intensity PES (reduced discrimination threshold) was associated with lower baseline performance (higher baseline discrimination threshold). Subjects were classified into low and high (baseline) GOT performance groups. Improved GOT discrimination performance in the low GOT performance group was significantly associated with a greater N20_SEP-PPD decrease (weaker PPD). Subjects were also classified into GOT improvement and GOT decrement groups. High-intensity PES decreased N20_SEP-PPD in the GOT improvement group but increased N20_SEP-PPD in the GOT decrement group. Furthermore, a greater decrease in GOT discrimination threshold was significantly associated with a greater N20_SEP-PPD decrease in the GOT improvement group. These results suggest that high-intensity PES can improve somatosensory perception in subjects with low baseline function by modulating cortical inhibitory circuits in primary somatosensory cortex.
Somatosensory inputs affect primary motor cortex (M1) excitability; however, the effect of movement-induced somatosensory inputs on M1 excitability is unknown. This study examined whether M1 excitability is modulated by somatosensory inputs with passive movement in 29 healthy subjects. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle (Experiment 1). M- and F-waves were measured from the FDI muscle (Experiment 2). Passive movements of the index finger were performed in the adduction direction. TMS pulses were preceded by starting passive movements with interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, and 210 ms. TMS or electrical stimulation was performed in the midrange of the metacarpophalangeal joint during passive movements. MEPs were significantly facilitated at 90, 120, and 150 ms (p < 0.05). No M- or F-wave changes were observed for any ISI. In addition, we investigated whether MEP changes were dependent on passive movement velocity and joint angle. Passive movement was performed at two movement velocities (Experiment 3) or joint angles (Experiment 4). MEP facilitation was observed depending on the movement velocities or joint angles. These experiments demonstrated that somatosensory inputs induced by passive movements facilitated M1 excitability depending on the ISIs, passive movement velocity, and joint angle.
Repetitive passive movement (PM) affects corticospinal excitability; however, it is unknown whether a duty cycle which repeats movement and rest, or subjects’ conscious attention to movements, affects corticospinal excitability. We aimed to clarify the effect of the presence or absence of a duty cycle and subjects’ attention on corticospinal excitability. Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, PM of the right index finger was performed for 10 min. Three conditions were used: (1) continuous PM (cPM) at a rate of 40°/s; (2) intermittent PM (iPM) with a duty cycle at 40°/s; and (3) iPM at 100°/s. In conditions 1 and 3, motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude was significantly reduced. In Experiment 2, PM was performed for 30 min: condition 1 comprised cPM at a rate of 40°/s and Condition 2 comprised iPM at 40°/s. MEP amplitude significantly decreased in both conditions. In Experiment 3, PM was performed for 10 min: condition 1 comprised paying attention to the moving finger during iPM and Condition 2 was similar to Condition 1 but while counting images on a monitor without looking at the movement finger, and Condition 3 comprised counting images on a monitor without performing PM. MEP amplitude significantly increased only under Condition 1. Thus, afferent input from movements above a certain threshold may affect corticospinal excitability reduction. Furthermore, corticospinal excitability increases when paying attention to passive finger movement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.