4.4 Article

Combined motor point associative stimulation (MPAS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improves plateaued manual dexterity performance

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 633, 期 -, 页码 134-140

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.09.034

关键词

Manual dexterity; Transcranial direct current stimulation tDCS; Motor cortex

资金

  1. Indiana University Graduate School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motor point associative stimulation (MPAS) in hand muscles is known to modify motor cortex excitability and improve learning rate, but not plateau of performance, in manual dexterity tasks. Central stimulation of motor cortex, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can have similar effects if accompanied by motor practice, which can be difficult and tiring for patients. Here we asked whether adding tDCS to MPAS could improve manual dexterity in healthy individuals who are already performing at their plateau, with no motor practice during stimulation. We hypothesized that MPAS could provide enough coordinated muscle activity to make motor practice unnecessary, and that this combination of stimulation techniques could yield improvements even in subjects at or near their peak. If so, this approach could have a substantial effect on patients with impaired dexterity, who are far from their peak. MPAS was applied for 30 min to two right hand muscles important for manual dexterity. tDCS was simultaneously applied over left sensorimotor cortex. The motor cortex input/output (I/O) curve was assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and manual dexterity was assessed with the Purdue Pegboard Test. Compared to sham or cathodal tDCS combined with MPAS, anodal tDCS combined with MPAS significantly increased the plateau of manual dexterity. This result suggests that MPAS has the potential to substitute for motor practice in mediating a beneficial effect of tDCS on manual dexterity. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.4
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