Anodal transcranial pulsed current stimulation: A novel technique to enhance corticospinal excitability

Jaberzadeh, Shapour; Bastani, Andisheh; Zoghi, Maryam

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.08.025

Cited by 54 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The motor threshold of the SOL-MEP was defined as the lowest stimulus intensity eliciting SOL-MEPs whose amplitude was larger than 50 μV in 5 out of 10 stimuli in the middle of the plantar flexion phase. The TMS intensity used for the experiment was 20% above the motor threshold (Jaberzadeh et al, 2014). TMS was delivered with the same timing and using the same methodology as triggering tibial nerve stimulation in Section “Experiment 1”.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different corticospinal control between discrete and rhythmic movement of the ankle

Goto¹,

Jono²,

Hatanaka³

et al. 2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated differences in corticospinal and spinal control between discrete and rhythmic ankle movements. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles and soleus H-reflex were elicited in the middle of the plantar flexion phase during discrete ankle movement or in the initial or later cycles of rhythmic ankle movement. The H-reflex was evoked at an intensity eliciting a small M-wave and MEPs were elicited at an intensity of 1.2 times the motor threshold of the soleus MEPs. Only trials in which background EMG level, ankle angle, and ankle velocity were similar among the movement conditions were included for data analysis. In addition, only trials with a similar M-wave were included for data analysis in the experiment evoking H-reflexes. Results showed that H reflex and MEP amplitudes in the soleus muscle during discrete movement were not significantly different from those during rhythmic movement. MEP amplitude in the tibialis anterior muscle during the later cycles of rhythmic movement was significantly larger than that during the initial cycle of the rhythmic movement or during discrete movement. Higher corticospinal excitability in the tibialis anterior muscle during the later cycles of rhythmic movement may reflect changes in corticospinal control from the initial cycle to the later cycles of rhythmic movement.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different corticospinal control between discrete and rhythmic movement of the ankle

Goto¹,

Jono²,

Hatanaka³

et al. 2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various ways to achieve these goals, all of which focus on transcranial stimulation have been developed over the years. These include transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), and transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) (Chen et al, 1997; Paulus, 2011; Tufail et al, 2011; Jaberzadeh et al, 2014). Among these methods, TMS and tDCS have been widely adopted and used in both healthy and clinical samples.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of Brain Activity with Noninvasive Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Clinical Applications and Safety Concerns

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a widely-used tool to induce neuroplasticity and modulate cortical function by applying weak direct current over the scalp. In this review, we first introduce the underlying mechanism of action, the brief history from discovery to clinical scientific research, electrode positioning and montages, and parameter setup of tDCS. Then, we review tDCS application in clinical samples including people with drug addiction, major depression disorder, Alzheimer's disease, as well as in children. This review covers the typical characteristics and the underlying neural mechanisms of tDCS treatment in such studies. This is followed by a discussion of safety, especially when the current intensity is increased or the stimulation duration is prolonged. Given such concerns, we provide detailed suggestions regarding safety procedures for tDCS operation. Lastly, future research directions are discussed. They include foci on the development of multi-tech combination with tDCS such as with TMS and fMRI; long-term behavioral and morphological changes; possible applications in other research domains, and more animal research to deepen the understanding of the biological and physiological mechanisms of tDCS stimulation.

show abstract

“…Preliminary evidence suggests that tPCS may induce dynamic changes in cortical areas including those responsible of cognitive processes [14]. For instance, it leads to modifications in learning processes, as a result of memory modulation, and in decision-making responses, attention and performance, by enhancing circuits [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural signature of tDCS, tPCS and their combination: Comparing the effects on neural plasticity

Thibaut

Russo

Morales-Quezada

et al. 2017

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are two noninvasive neuromodulatory brain stimulation techniques whose effects on human brain and behavior have been studied individually. In the present study we aimed to quantify the effects of tDCS and tPCS, individually and in combination, on cortical activity, sensitivity and pain-related assessments in healthy individuals in order to understand their neurophysiological mechanisms and potential applications in clinical populations. A total of 48 healthy individuals participated in this randomized double blind sham controlled study. Participants were randomized to receive a single stimulation session of either: active or sham tPCS and active or sham tDCS. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), sensitivity and pain assessments were used before and after each stimulation session. We observed that tPCS had a higher effect on power, as compared to tDCS, in several bandwidths on various cortical regions: the theta band in the parietal region (p = 0.021), the alpha band in the temporal (p = 0.009), parietal (p = 0.0063), and occipital (p < 0.0001) regions. We found that the combination of tPCS and tDCS significantly decreased power in the low beta bandwidth of the frontal (p = 0.0006), central (p = 0.0001), and occipital (p = 0.0003) regions, when compared to sham stimulation. Additionally, tDCS significantly increased power in high beta over the temporal (p = 0.0015) and parietal (p = 0.0007) regions, as compared to sham. We found no effect on sensitivity or pain-related assessments. We concluded that tPCS and tDCS have different neurophysiological mechanisms, elicit distinct signatures, and that the combination of the two leads to no effect or a decrease on qEEG power. Further studies are required to examine the effects of these techniques on clinical populations in which EEG signatures have been found altered.

show abstract

Anodal transcranial pulsed current stimulation: A novel technique to enhance corticospinal excitability

Cited by 54 publications

References 42 publications

Different corticospinal control between discrete and rhythmic movement of the ankle

Different corticospinal control between discrete and rhythmic movement of the ankle

Modulation of Brain Activity with Noninvasive Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Clinical Applications and Safety Concerns

Neural signature of tDCS, tPCS and their combination: Comparing the effects on neural plasticity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About