4.6 Article

Does Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation Induce Cerebellum Plasticity? Feasibility, Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Electrophysiological Approach

期刊

BRAIN STIMULATION
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 388-395

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.02.005

关键词

Cerebellum; Cerebellum-brain inhibition; Motor adaptation; Purkinje cell; Transcranial alternating current stimulation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cerebellum-brain functional connectivity can be shaped through different non-invasive neurostimulation approaches. In this study, we propose a novel approach to perturb the cerebellum-brain functional connectivity by means of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Methods: Twenty-five healthy individuals underwent a cerebellar tACS protocol employing different frequencies (10, 50, and 300 Hz) and a sham-tACS over the right cerebellar hemisphere. We measured their after-effects on the motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, the cerebellum-brain inhibition (CBI), the long-latency intracortical inhibition (LICI), from the primary motor cortex of both the hemispheres. In addition, we assessed the functional adaptation to a right hand sequential tapping motor task. Results: None of the participants had any side-effect. Following 50 Hz-tACS, we observed a clear contralateral CBI weakening, paralleled by a MEP increase with a better adaptation to frequency variations during the sequential tapping. The 300 Hz-tACS induced a contralateral CBI strengthening, without significant MEP and kinematic after-effects. The 10 Hz-tACS conditioning was instead ineffective. Conclusions: We may argue that tACS protocols could have interfered with the activity of CBI-sustaining Purkinje cell, affecting motor adaptation. Our safe approach seems promising in studying the cerebellum-brain functional connectivity, with possible implications in neurorehabilitative settings. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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