Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in combination with motor practice on dexterous grasping and manipulation in healthy older adults

Parikh, Pranav J.; Cole, Kelly J.

doi:10.1002/phy2.255

Cited by 34 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…() provided preliminary evidence that a single application of a‐tDCS in older adults improved hand function in a task that mimics activities of daily living. Similar findings have been obtained for dexterous grasping (Parikh & Cole, ), motor sequence learning (Zimerman et al ., ), and visuomotor tracking (Goodwill et al ., ). Our findings are in line with such proof‐of‐concept studies in the elderly, as we demonstrated that MVF‐induced performance improvements could be further enhanced by concurrent a‐tDCS application.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Augmenting mirror visual feedback‐induced performance improvements in older adults

Hoff

Kaminski

Rjosk

et al. 2015

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Augmenting mirror visual feedback‐induced performance improvements in older adults

Hoff

Kaminski

Rjosk

et al. 2015

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence does not differ significantly between active and sham stimulation, indicating the effectiveness of the standard fade-in fade-out sham stimulation at least in naïve subjects (Hummel et al, 2010; Lindenberg et al, 2013; Manor et al, 2016; Parikh and Cole, 2014; Sandrini et al, 2014, 2016; Zimerman et al, 2013). Not surprisingly, the identification of the actually applied stimulation paradigm is more accurate after repeated sessions (Nilsson et al, 2015; Wallace et al, 2016).…”

Section: The Application Of Low Intensity Tes In Human Studies: Aementioning

confidence: 90%

“…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). …”

Section: The Application Of Low Intensity Tes In Human Studies: Aementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Antal

Alekseichuk

Bikson

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

889

728

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1–2 mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2 mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity ‘conventional’ TES defined as <4 mA, up to 60 min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3–13 A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10 mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6–7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

show abstract

“…Several studies suggest that anodal tDCS can restore normal motor performance in healthy older subjects (Hummel et al, 2010; Parikh and Cole, 2014). In addition, this age-related decline in motor performance is also accompanied by an age-related decline in motor learning/motor adaptation (Seidler, 2007; Lustig et al, 2009).…”

Section: Application Of the Three Principles Of Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrifying the motor engram: effects of tDCS on motor learning and control

Xivry

Shadmehr

2014

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning to control our movements accompanies neuroplasticity of motor areas of the brain. The mechanisms of neuroplasticity are diverse and produce what is referred to as the motor engram, i.e. the neural trace of the motor memory. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) alters the neural and behavioral correlates of motor learning, but its precise influence on the motor engram is unknown. In this review, we summarize the effects of tDCS on neural activity and suggest a few key principles: 1) firing rates are increased by anodal polarization and decreased by cathodal polarization, 2) anodal polarization strengthens newly formed associations, and 3) polarization modulates the memory of new/preferred firing patterns. With these principles in mind, we review the effects of tDCS on motor control, motor learning, and clinical applications. The increased spontaneous and evoked firing rates may account for the modulation of dexterity in non-learning tasks by tDCS. The facilitation of new association may account for the effect of tDCS on learning in sequence tasks while the ability of tDCS to strengthen memories of new firing patterns may underlie the effect of tDCS on consolidation of skills. We then describe the mechanisms of neuroplasticity of motor cortical areas and how they might be influenced by tDCS. We end with current challenges for the fields of brain stimulation and motor learning.

show abstract

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in combination with motor practice on dexterous grasping and manipulation in healthy older adults

Cited by 34 publications

References 45 publications

Augmenting mirror visual feedback‐induced performance improvements in older adults

Augmenting mirror visual feedback‐induced performance improvements in older adults

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

Electrifying the motor engram: effects of tDCS on motor learning and control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About