4.5 Article

Polarity-specific modulation of pain processing by transcranial direct current stimulation - a blinded longitudinal fMRI study

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-018-0924-5

关键词

Neuromodulation; Nociception; Pain; fMRI; tDCS; Transcranial direct current stimulation

资金

  1. Medical Faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen (IFORES grand)
  2. Grunenthal scientific grand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundTo enrich the hitherto insufficient understanding regarding the mechanisms of action of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in pain disorders, we investigated its modulating effects on cerebral pain processing using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).MethodsThirteen right-handed healthy participants received 20min of 1.5mA tDCS applied over the primary motor cortex thrice and under three different stimulation pattern (1.anodal-tDCS, 2.cathodal-tDCS, and 3.sham-tDCS) in a blinded cross-over design. After tDCS neural response to electric trigeminal-nociceptive stimulation was investigated using a block designed fMRI.ResultsPain stimulation showed a distinct activation pattern within well-established brain regions associated with pain processing. Following anodal tDCS increased activation was detected in the thalamus, basal ganglia, amygdala, cingulate, precentral, postcentral, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while cathodal t-DCS showed decreased response in these areas (p(FWE)<0.05). Interestingly the observed effect was reversed in both control conditions (visual- and motor-stimulation). Behavioral data remained unchanged irrespective of the tDCS stimulation mode.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates polarity-specific modulation of cerebral pain processing, in reconfirmation of previous electrophysiological data. Anodal tDCS leads to an activation of the central pain-network while cathodal tDCS does not. Results contribute to a network-based understanding of tDCS's impact on cerebral pain-processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据