P649: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of left parietal cortex facilitates gesture processing in healthy subjects

Achilles, Elisabeth I.S.; Weiss, Peter H.; Moos, Katharina; Hesse, Maike D.; Sparing, Roland; Fink, Gereon R.

doi:10.1016/s1388-2457(14)50744-4

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, its effects are not known with certainty, but they are believed to be dependent on several factors such as intensity applied [ 3 ], time of stimulation [ 4 ] and size of the electrodes used [ 5 ]. The majority of the studies focused their research on applying tDCS to the representation of the upper limbs in the brain to evaluate the performance of the subjects or to improve the quality of life of stroke patients who have had that area affected [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Only relatively few studies attempted to investigate how tDCS could affect the lower limbs [ 9 , 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of tDCS on Real-Time BCI Detection of Pedaling Motor Imagery

Rodríguez-Ugarte

Íáñez

Ortiz

et al. 2018

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this work is to strengthen the cortical excitability over the primary motor cortex (M1) and the cerebro-cerebellar pathway by means of a new transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) configuration to detect lower limb motor imagery (MI) in real time using two different cognitive neural states: relax and pedaling MI. The anode is located over the primary motor cortex in Cz, and the cathode over the right cerebro-cerebellum. The real-time brain–computer interface (BCI) designed is based on finding, for each electrode selected, the power at the particular frequency where the most difference between the two mental tasks is observed. Electroencephalographic (EEG) electrodes are placed over the brain’s premotor area (PM), M1, supplementary motor area (SMA) and primary somatosensory cortex (S1). A single-blind study is carried out, where fourteen healthy subjects are separated into two groups: sham and active tDCS. Each subject is experimented on for five consecutive days. On all days, the results achieved by the active tDCS group were over 60% in real-time detection accuracy, with a five-day average of 62.6%. The sham group eventually reached those levels of accuracy, but it needed three days of training to do so.

show abstract