Background Reward-based feedback given during motor learning has been shown to improve the retention of the behaviour being acquired. Interestingly, applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during learning over the primary motor cortex (M1), an area associated with motor retention, also results in enhanced retention of the newly formed motor memories. However, it remains unknown whether combining these distinct interventions result in an additive benefit of motor retention. Methods We investigated whether combining both interventions while participants learned to account for a visuomotor transformation results in enhanced motor retention (total n = 56; each group n = 14). To determine whether these interventions share common physiological mechanisms underpinning learning, we assessed motor cortical excitability and inhibition (i.e. SICI) on a hand muscle before and after all participants learned the visuomotor rotation using their entire arm and hand. Results We found that both the Reward-Stim (i.e. reward + tDCS) and Reward-Sham (i.e. reward-only) groups had increased retention at the beginning of the retention phase, indicating an immediate effect of reward on behaviour. However, each intervention on their own did not enhance retention when compared to sham, but rather, only the combination of both reward and tDCS demonstrated prolonged retention. We also found that only the Reward-Stim group had a significant reduction in SICI after exposure to the perturbation. Conclusions We show that combining both interventions are additive in providing stronger retention of motor adaptation. These results indicate that the reliability and validity of using tDCS within a clinical context may depend on the type of feedback individuals receive when learning a new motor pattern.

Background Despite an initially indolent course, all WHO grade II, LGGs inevitably transform to malignant, WHO grades III and IV, without current curative options. Malignant transformation (MT) remains unpredictable with limited prognostic markers to steer timing of interventions. The aim of this study was to review and assign predictive value to specific clinical, molecular and radiological markers impacting MT, thereby justifying timely therapeutic interventions. Methods Searches of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were conducted from inception to April 28, 2021 and outputs were analysed in accordance with PRISMA protocol. Results From an initial 5,032 articles, 31 articles were included, totalling 5,193 patients. Forty-three prognostic factors were registered to significantly impact MT. These were categorised as 7 clinical; 14 neuroimaging; 8 biological/molecular; 3 volumetric; 5 topological; 3 histological; and 3 treatment-related. Following analysis, 10 factors were highlighted: the pre-operative prognosticators were 1. presentation with epileptic seizures; 2. VDE >8mm/year; 3. VDE >4mm/year; 4. rCBV >1.75; 5. PTV ≥5 cm (65ml); 6. PTV ≥100 ml; and 7. cortical involvement. The post-operative prognosticators were 1.IDH-wt; 2. TP53 mutation; and 3. temozolomide monotherapy. Conclusions The management of LGGs remains controversial, as conservative and invasive treatment may be associated with MT and impaired quality of life, respectively. Our review indicates that MT can be predicted by specific metrics in VDE, PTV and rCBV, alongside cortical involvement. Additionally, patients with IDH-wt tumours TP53 mutations, or receiving TMZ monotherapy are more likely to undergo MT. Our data may form the basis of a predictive scoring system.