4.3 Article

Individual electric field predicts functional connectivity changes after anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation in chronic stroke

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 21-32

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neures.2022.10.003

关键词

Transcranial direct current stimulation; Stroke; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Functional connectivity; Electric field modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effects of anodal tDCS on functional changes in sensorimotor areas among chronic stroke survivors. The results showed that anodal tDCS facilitated functional connectivity within the ipsilesional sensorimotor network. Additionally, individual electric field strength was found to predict the functional outcomes.
The neuromodulation effect of anodal tDCS is not thoroughly studied, and the heterogeneous profile of stroke individuals with brain lesions would further complicate the stimulation outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the functional changes in sensorimotor areas induced by anodal tDCS and whether individual electric field could predict the functional outcomes. Twenty-five chronic stroke survivors were recruited and divided into tDCS group (n = 12) and sham group (n = 13). Increased functional connectivity (FC) within the surrounding areas of ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1) was only observed after anodal tDCS. Averaged FC among the ipsilesional sensorimotor regions was observed to be increased after anodal tDCS (t(11) = 2.57, p = 0.026), but not after sham tDCS (t(12) = 0.69, p = 0.50). Partial least square analysis identified positive correlations between electric field (EF) strength normal to the ipsilesional M1 surface and individual FC changes in tDCS group (r = 0.84, p < 0.001) but not in sham group (r = 0.21, p = 0.5). Our results indicated anodal tDCS facilitates the FC within the ipsilesional sensorimotor network in chronic stroke subjects, and individual electric field predicts the functional outcomes.

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

4.3
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