4.5 Article

Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on elbow flexor maximal voluntary isometric strength and endurance

Journal

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 734-739

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2012-0412

Keywords

anodal tDCS; muscle endurance; time to failure; maximal voluntary isometric contraction; cortical excitability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength and the time to failure (TTF) in an isometric (30% MVC) muscle endurance test of the elbow flexors were investigated. Fifteen men (mean age, 27.7 +/- 8.4 years) were tested for MVC strength and TTF 2 times, separated by a 60-min rest. During the last 10 min of the rest period, 1 of 2 tDCS treatments or 1 sham intervention session was administered, in a randomized order, with 1 week between sessions. In the tDCS intervention, a 2 mA direct current was delivered for 10 min through an anode placed on the scalp, overlying the right motor cortical representation of the left arm; a cathode was secured over the right shoulder. In the sham intervention, the current was delivered for the first 30 s only. No significant differences between the first and second tDCS sessions were evident for MVC strength or TTF. For MVC strength (baseline, 66.0 +/- 11.4 Nm), postintervention measures decreased by 5.9% +/- 4.2% (p < 0.05), but no significant difference in the changes was evident between tDCS and sham sessions. TTF did not change significantly from preintervention (309.2 +/- 91.6 s) to postintervention (327.2 +/- 128.5 s), and there was no significant difference between interventions. It was concluded that the tDCS intervention did not affect muscle function, perhaps because of ceiling effects, in which the intervention does not enhance muscle function further when muscle function is already maximal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available