Augmenting mirror visual feedback‐induced performance improvements in older adults

Abstract

Previous studies have indicated that age-related behavioral alterations are not irreversible but are subject to amelioration through specific training interventions. Both training paradigms and non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) can be used to modulate age-related brain alterations and thereby influence behavior. It has been shown that mirror visual feedback (MVF) during motor skill training improves performance of the trained and untrained hands in young adults. The question remains of whether MVF also improves motor performance in older adults and how performance improvements can be optimised via NIBS. Here, we sought to determine whether anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can be used to augment MVF-induced performance improvements in manual dexterity. We found that older adults receiving a-tDCS over the right primary motor cortex (M1) during MVF showed superior performance improvements of the (left) untrained hand relative to sham stimulation. An additional control experiment in participants receiving a-tDCS over the right M1 only (without MVF/motor training of the right hand) revealed no significant behavioral gains in the left (untrained) hand. On the basis of these findings, we propose that combining a-tDCS with MVF might be relevant for future clinical studies that aim to optimise the outcome of neurorehabilitation.

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

“…Similar results were seen in a study of anodal tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) over the M1 with a supraorbital return electrode (20 min, 1 mA) with regard to attention, discomfort and fatigue (Hoff et al, 2015). …”

“…About one-third of the studies published until 2016 in aging populations reported no occurrence of tDCS-related AEs without giving details (Table 7). The most commonly reported AEs were typical tingling and itching that usually occurred when stimulation began but were also reported under sham conditions, where stimulation was applied only for a short duration at the beginning of the session (Boggio et al, 2010; Fertonani et al, 2014; Gandiga et al, 2006; Harty et al, 2014; Hoff et al, 2015; Holland et al, 2011; Learmonth et al, 2015; Manenti et al, 2013; Parikh and Cole, 2014; Sandrini et al, 2014, 2016). …”

The Effects of Priming Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation on Movement-Related and Mirror Visual Feedback-Induced Sensorimotor Desynchronization

“…In the present study, the effects of MVF were found in low mu, high mu, and low beta bands, which is in line with previous investigations conducted among healthy adults [22,24,32]. Moreover, we found that both protocols enhanced the MVF-induced ERD in the high mu and low beta bands, indicating that both TBS protocols delivered to the motor cortex could make the brain more receptive to MVF, which provide neurophysiological evidence to explain the behavioral bene ts from excitatory motor cortex stimulation on the observation-based motor learning [32,47,48]. However, we did not nd any signi cant difference between the two TBS protocols.…”

Effects of tDCS on motor learning and memory formation: A consensus and critical position paper

“…A series of studies have looked at online learning and adaptation effects over the life span (Goodwill, Reynolds, Daly, & Kidgell, 2013;Hardwick & Celnik, 2014;Hoff et al, 2015;Hummel et al, 2010;Zimerman et al, 2013). Hummel and colleagues (2010) investigated motor performance effects of tDCS using a crossover design in a cohort of older adults (Hummel et al, 2010).…”