| Autor: |
Summers RLS; Divisions of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States., Chen M; Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.; Non-invasive Neuromodulation Laboratory, MnDRIVE Initiative, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States., Hatch A; Divisions of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States., Kimberley TJ; Divisions of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background : Cerebellar activity can be modulated using cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) and, when applied concurrently with task training, has been shown to facilitate cognitive and motor performance. However, how ctDCS facilitates motor performance is not fully understood. Objective/Hypothesis : To assess the electrophysiological and motor performance effects of ctDCS applied during motor training. Methods : Fourteen healthy adults (age 28.8 ± 10.5 years) were randomly assigned to complete one session of finger tracking training with either simultaneous bilateral anodal or sham ctDCS. Training was completed in two 15 min epochs with a 5-min break (total 30 min stimulation, 2 mA). Tracking accuracy and corticospinal and intracortical excitability were measured immediately before and after the training period. Motor cortical excitability measures included resting motor threshold (RMT), motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, cortical silent period (CSP) and short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI). Results : There was a significant interaction of Group * Time for MEP amplitude and CSP duration ( p < 0.01). Post hoc analysis revealed MEP amplitude was increased in the sham group ( p < 0.01), indicating increased corticospinal excitability from baseline while the anodal group displayed a decrease in MEP amplitude ( p = 0.023) and prolongation of CSP duration ( p < 0.01). SICI and RMT remained unchanged following ctDCS and training. Task accuracy was improved in both groups at post-test with a significant effect of Time ( p < 0.01); however, there was no effect of Group ( p = 0.45) or interaction of Group * Time ( p = 0.83). During training, there was a significant effect of Block ( p < 0.01) but no significant effect of Group or interaction effect ( p > 0.06). Conclusions : ctDCS applied during task training is capable of modulating or interfering with practice-related changes in corticospinal excitability without disrupting performance improvement. |
