Does M1 anodal transcranial direct current stimulation affects online and offline motor learning in patients with multiple sclerosis?

Masoudian, Nooshin; Ehsani, Fatemeh; Nazari, Monireh; Zoghi, Maryam; Jaberzadeh, Shapour

doi:10.1007/s10072-020-04359-9

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, Masoudian et al [34] showed greater performance during the execution of the serial response time task (online learning) in the PwMS group that received atDCS to the left M1 compared to sham stimulated patients or healthy controls. Performance improvement in between practice periods, when subjects were at rest (offline learning), was only achieved by patients who received atDCS but not in the sham group, indicating impairment of offline motor learning in PwMS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Conflicting results regarding motor consolidation in upper limb motor learning tasks in PwMS might be due to the different stimulation timings (during [23,29,34] vs. after [35] training) used in the studies. Positive effects of atDCS on motor consolidation in PwMS were found only when applied during the training [29,34]. However, this result is insufficient to confirm the effectiveness of tDCS in improving upper limb motor function and motor consolidation in PwMS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A current intensity of at least 2 mA might be required during motor cortex stimulation for the improvement in upper limb function in PwMS to be observed, as positive outcomes at such current intensity were demonstrated [29,34], whilst a lack of effect was found at lower current intensities [23,35]. Conflicting results regarding motor consolidation in upper limb motor learning tasks in PwMS might be due to the different stimulation timings (during [23,29,34] vs. after [35] training) used in the studies. Positive effects of atDCS on motor consolidation in PwMS were found only when applied during the training [29,34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conflicting results in the current literature can at least partially be explained by the varied outcome measures used (FTT [23,35]/serial response time task [34]/grip strength and fine motor speed [29]). It seems possible that the FTT is not sensitive enough to detect small improvements in motor performance, learning and consolidation in PwMS, potentially explaining the lack of effects found by Meesen et al [23] and Rumpf et al [35].…”

Section: Upper Limbmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…training) used in the studies. Positive effects of atDCS on motor consolidation in PwMS were found only when applied during the training[29,34]. However, this result is insufficient to confirm the effectiveness of tDCS in improving upper limb motor function and motor consolidation in PwMS.Transcranial direct current stimulation still holds potential as an option to boost the rehabilitation of upper limb function, as long as care is taken in selecting ideal tDCS protocols and sufficiently sensitive and clinically relevant outcome measures such as the 9HPT.Further investigations regarding motor reorganization as well as effective connectivity in PwMS are warranted in order to aid the selection of target sites.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in people with multiple sclerosis: a review

Hiew

Nguemeni

Zeller

2021

Euro J of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system characterized by demyelination and neurodegeneration, leading to focal lesions in both the white and the grey matter [1].The underlying causes and mechanisms behind this chronic disease remain opaque. People with MS (PwMS) are faced with a wide range of symptoms, including disturbances of gait, coordination and vision, as well as pain, fatigue, depression and tremor [2]. Initially, the majority of PwMS present with a relapsing-remitting disease course, but

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Upper Limbmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in people with multiple sclerosis: a review

Hiew

Nguemeni

Zeller

2021

Euro J of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation for upper extremity spasticity rehabilitation in stroke survivors: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Alashram

Padua²,

Aburub

et al. 2022

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To examine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on upper extremity spasticity after stroke and to define the most effective tDCS parameters. Literature Survey: Systematic review in the following databases: PubMed, SCOPUS, PEDro, CINAHL, MEDLINE, REHABDATA, AMED, and Web of Science databases. Studies up to June 2020 were included. Methodology: Studies were included if the sample was composed of individuals with stroke, the intervention followed a tDCS intervention (alone or combined with another intervention), and the study was a randomized controlled trial including at least one measurement assessing upper extremity spasticity. Two authors independently screened the included studies. Conflicting decisions between authors were resolved by discussion with the third author. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The authors determined that the meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity in the protocols among the included studies. Synthesis: After the screening of 1204 records, a total of seven studies met the specified inclusion criteria and involved 320 participants (mean age = 60.3), 31.1% of whom were females. Patients with ischemic stroke comprised 77.2% of the total patients, and 42.2% were with right hemispheric stroke. Six studies exhibited "high" quality and one exhibited "moderate" quality. Five of the selected studies that combined the tDCS intervention and other traditional interventions showed a significant reduction in upper extremity spasticity after stroke following tDCS intervention. The other two studies that delivered tDCs alone did not show a significant difference. Conclusions: The evidence for the effect of tDCS on upper extremity spasticity after stroke was limited. The optimal tDCS treatment dosage remains unclear. Additional studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up are strongly warranted.

show abstract

Noninvasive brain stimulation for spasticity rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Alashram,

Janada,

Ghrear

2023

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo investigate the effects of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).Literature surveyWe searched PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, REHABDATA, PEDro, CINAHL, AMED, and Web of Science until December 2022.MethodologyStudies were selected if they included PwMS, using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a main intervention, and the study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) including at least one outcome measure evaluating spasticity. Two researchers individually screened the selected studies. The study's quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations tool. The researchers decided that the meta‐analysis was not possible because the treatment interventions varied among the selected studies.SynthesisIn total, 147 studies were reviewed. Of them, nine studies met the eligibility criteria and included 193 PwMS (mean age = 43.25), 54.4% of whom were females. Eight studies considered "high" quality and one considered "moderate" quality. Seven studies that used rTMS demonstrated a significant decrease in spasticity in PwMS after the intervention. The remaining studies that provided tDCS did not show meaningful effects.ConclusionsThe evidence for the influences of rTMS on spasticity in PwMS is promising. The evidence for the impact of tDCS on spasticity in PwMS was limited. Further RCTs with long‐term follow‐ups are encouraged.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Does M1 anodal transcranial direct current stimulation affects online and offline motor learning in patients with multiple sclerosis?

Cited by 10 publications

References 40 publications

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in people with multiple sclerosis: a review

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in people with multiple sclerosis: a review

Transcranial direct current stimulation for upper extremity spasticity rehabilitation in stroke survivors: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Noninvasive brain stimulation for spasticity rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About