4.5 Article

Effects of electro-acupuncture at Tongli (HT 5) and Xuanzhong (GB 39) acupoints from functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 846-854

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11655-015-1971-2

关键词

electroacupuncture; Tongli (HT 5); Xuanzhong (GB 39); functional magnetic resonance imaging; brain network

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81072768]
  2. New Century Excellent Talents in University of the Ministry of Education of China [NCET-11-0603]
  3. Capital Featured Clinical Research of Beijing Municipal Science and Technology, China [Z131107002213094]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To explore the specifificity of Tongli (HT 5) and Xuanzhong (GB 39) paired acupionts in aspects of Deqi sensation and brain activation patterns during electroacupuncture. In this study, 15 healthy subjects were enrolled. All participants suffered two kinds of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) examinations randomly: Examination A received electro-acupuncture (EA) at the bilateral Tongli (HT5) and Xuanzhong (GB 39) acupoints (ACU), and examination B received EA at bilateral non-acupoints (NAP). The subjects reported the feeling of Deqi at each examination later respectively. A multi-voxel pattern analysis method and Statistical Program for Social Sciences were used to analyze the data. The ACU group (Exam A) reported fullness, heaviness, numbness, soreness and throbbing of signifificantly greater intensity than the NAP group (Exam B). In addition, there was no statistical signifificance between two groups in aching, tingling, deep pressure, sharp pain, dull pain, warmness and cold. Meanwhile, fMRI data revealed differences between two groups in discriminating accuracy of brain somatosensory cortex and language-related cortices. Needling HT 5 and GB 39 may modulate language function through a complex brain network, suggesting that it may be benefificial to the recovery of language function in patients with aphasia.

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