Robust enhancement of motor sequence learning with 4 mA transcranial electric stimulation

Comparing the effects of anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex at varying intensities on motor learning in healthy young adults

Inconsistent results are observed in the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with different montages on motor learning. This study aimed to compare the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) over primary motor cortex (M1) at different intensities on motor learning in healthy young adults. The participants were randomly divided into: (1) 1 mA M1 c-tDCS, (2) 1 mA M1 anodal tDCS (a-tDCS), (3) 2 mA M1 c-tDCS, (4) 2 mA M1 a-tDCS and (5) M1 sham tDCS groups. The groups received 20-min stimulation with serial reaction time task (SRTT) incidentally, while the tDCS was turned off after 30 s in the sham tDCS group. Response time (RT) and error rate (ER) during SRTT were assessed prior, during and 72 h after the intervention. The results of the paired t-test indicated that online learning occurred in all groups (p < 0.05), except in M1 c-tDCS (1 mA) (p > 0.05). One-way ANOVA analysis also indicated that there were differences in offline learning (RT (F(DF) = 5.19(4); p < 0.001; and ER (F(DF) = 9(4), p < 0.0001) among groups, with more offline learning in 1 mA M1 a-tDCS, 2 mA M1 c-tDCS and 2 mA M1 a-tDCS groups (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the 1 mA M1 c-tDCS group did not indicate any consolidation effect or even a trend toward negative offline learning. M1 a-tDCS with different intensities and also 2 mA M1 c-tDCS may be helpful for the enhancement of motor learning in young healthy adults. This study enhances our understanding of tDCS intensity and polarity effects on motor learning, with potential for optimizing therapeutic protocols.

Intensity-dependent effects of tDCS on motor learning are related to dopamine

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), are popular methods for inducing neuroplastic changes to alter cognition and behaviour. One challenge for the field is to optimise stimulation protocols to maximise benefits. For this to happen, we need a better understanding of how stimulation modulates cortical functioning/behaviour. To date, there is increasing evidence for a dose-response relationship between tDCS and brain excitability, however how this relates to behaviour is not well understood. Even less is known about the neurochemical mechanisms which may drive the dose-response relationship between stimulation intensities and behaviour. Here, we examine the effect of three different tDCS stimulation intensities (1 mA, 2 mA, 4 mA anodal motor cortex tDCS) administered during the explicit learning of motor sequences. Further, to assess the role of dopamine in the dose-response relationship between tDCS intensities and behaviour, we examined how pharmacologically increasing dopamine availability, via 100 mg of levodopa, modulated the effect of stimulation on learning. In the absence of levodopa, we found that 4 mA tDCS improved and 1 mA tDCS impaired acquisition of motor sequences relative to sham stimulation. Conversely, levodopa reversed the beneficial effect of 4 mA tDCS. This effect of levodopa was no longer evident at the 48-h follow-up, consistent with previous work characterising the persistence of neuroplastic changes in the motor cortex resulting from combining levodopa with tDCS. These results provide the first direct evidence for a role of dopamine in the intensity-dependent effects of tDCS on behaviour.

Transcriptomic analysis of rat brain response to alternating current electrical stimulation: unveiling insights via single-nucleus RNA sequencing

Electrical brain stimulation (EBS) has gained popularity for laboratory and clinical applications. However, comprehensive characterization of cellular diversity and gene expression changes induced by EBS remains limited, particularly with respect to specific brain regions and stimulation sites. Here, we presented the initial single-nucleus RNA sequencing profiles of rat cortex, hippocampus, and thalamus subjected to intracranial alternating current stimulation (iACS) at 40 Hz. The results demonstrated an increased number of neurons in all three regions in response to iACS. Interestingly, less than 0.1% of host gene expression in neurons was significantly altered by iACS. In addition, we identified Rgs9, a known negative regulator of dopaminergic signaling, as a unique downregulated gene in neurons. Unilateral iACS produced a more focused local effect in attenuating the proportion of Rgs9+ neurons in the ipsilateral compared to bilateral iACS treatment. The results suggested that unilateral iACS at 40 Hz was an efficient approach to increase the number of neurons and downregulate Rgs9 gene expression without affecting other cell types or genes in the brain. Our study presented the direct evidence that EBS could boost cerebral neurogenesis and enhance neuronal sensitization to dopaminergic drugs and agonists, through its downregulatory effect on Rgs9 in neurons.

Complex sequential learning is not facilitated by transcranial direct current stimulation over DLPFC or M1

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique which was found to have a positive modulatory effect on online sequence acquisition or offline motor consolidation, depending on the relative role of the associated brain region. Primary motor regions (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC) have both been related to sequential learning. However, research so far did not systematically disentangle their differential roles in online and offline learning especially in more complex sequential paradigms. In this study, the influence of anodal M1 leg area-tDCS and anodal DLPFC-tDCS applied during complex sequential learning (online and offline) was investigated using a complex whole body serial reaction time task (CWB-SRTT) in 42 healthy volunteers. TDCS groups did not differ from sham tDCS group regarding their response and reaction time (online) and also not in terms of overnight consolidation (offline). Sequence specific learning and the number of recalled items also did not differ between groups. Results may be related to unspecific parameters such as timing of the stimulation or current intensity but can also be attributed to the relative role of M1 and DLPFC during early complex learning. Taken together, the current study provides preliminary evidence that M1 leg area or DLPFC modulation by means of tDCS does not improve complex sequential skill learning. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Understanding motor learning is helpful to deepen our knowledge about the human ability to acquire new skills. Complex sequential learning tasks have only been studied, sparsely, but are particularly mimicking challenges of daily living. The present study studied early motor learning in a complex serial reaction time task while transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was either applied to leg primary motor cortex or bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. TDCS did not affect sequential learning, neither directly during performance nor in terms of sequence consolidation. Results provide preliminary information that M1 or bilateral DLPFC modulation does not improve early complex motor learning.

Exploring the intra-individual reliability of tDCS: A registered report

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, has become an important tool for the study of in-vivo brain function due to its modulatory effects. Over the past two decades, interest in the influence of tDCS on behaviour has increased markedly, resulting in a large body of literature spanning multiple domains. However, the effect of tDCS on human performance often varies, bringing into question the reliability of this approach. While reviews and meta-analyses highlight the contributions of methodological inconsistencies and individual differences, no published studies have directly tested the intra-individual reliability of tDCS effects on behaviour. Here, we conducted a large scale, double-blinded, sham-controlled registered report to assess the reliability of two single-session low-dose tDCS montages, previously found to impact response selection and motor learning operations, across two separate time periods. Our planned analysis found no evidence for either protocol being effective nor reliable. Post-hoc explorative analyses found evidence that tDCS influenced motor learning, but not response selection learning. In addition, the reliability of motor learning performance across trials was shown to be disrupted by tDCS. These findings are amongst the first to shed light specifically on the intra-individual reliability of tDCS effects on behaviour and provide valuable information to the field.

Micro-consolidation occurs when learning an implicit motor sequence, but is not influenced by HIIT exercise

We investigated if micro-consolidation, a phenomenon recently discovered during the brief rest periods between practice when learning an explicit motor sequence, generalises to learning an implicit motor sequence task. We demonstrate micro-consolidation occurs in the absence of explicit sequence awareness. We also investigated the effect of a preceding bout of high-intensity exercise, as exercise is known to augment the consolidation of new motor skills. Micro-consolidation was not modified by exercise.

Small effects of electric field on motor cortical excitability following anodal tDCS

The dose-response characteristics of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) remain uncertain but may be related to variability in brain electric fields due to individual anatomical factors. Here, we investigated whether the electric fields influence the responses to motor cortical tDCS. In a randomized cross-over design, 21 participants underwent 10 min of anodal tDCS with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0 mA or sham. Compared to sham, all active conditions increased the size of motor evoked potentials (MEP) normalized to the pre-tDCS baseline, irrespective of anterior or posterior magnetic test stimuli. The electric field calculated in the motor cortex of each participant had a nonlinear effect on the normalized MEP size, but its effects were small compared to those of other participant-specific factors. The findings support the efficacy of anodal tDCS in enhancing the MEP size but do not demonstrate any benefits of personalized electric field modeling in explaining tDCS response variability.

Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study

BACKGROUND

Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to estimate the amount of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) that reaches the cortex and to address the variable behavioral effects observed in the field. However, outcome measures used to quantify E-fields vary considerably and a thorough comparison is missing.

OBJECTIVES

This two-part study aimed to examine the different outcome measures used to report on tES and TMS induced E-fields, including volume- and surface-level gray matter, region of interest (ROI), whole brain, geometrical, structural, and percentile-based approaches. The study aimed to guide future research in informed selection of appropriate outcome measures.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies quantifying E-fields. The identified outcome measures were compared across volume- and surface-level E-field data in ten tES and TMS modalities targeting two common targets in 100 healthy individuals.

RESULTS

In the systematic review, we extracted 308 outcome measures from 202 studies that adopted either a gray matter volume-level (n = 197) or surface-level (n = 111) approach. Volume-level results focused on E-field magnitude, while surface-level data encompassed E-field magnitude (n = 64) and normal/tangential E-field components (n = 47). E-fields were extracted in ROIs, such as brain structures and shapes (spheres, hexahedra and cylinders), or the whole brain. Percentiles or mean values were mostly used to quantify E-fields. Our modeling study, which involved 1,000 E-field models and > 1,000,000 extracted E-field values, revealed that different outcome measures yielded distinct E-field values, analyzed different brain regions, and did not always exhibit strong correlations in the same within-subject E-field model.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measure selection significantly impacts the locations and intensities of extracted E-field data in both tES and TMS E-field models. The suitability of different outcome measures depends on the target region, TMS/tES modality, individual anatomy, the analyzed E-field component and the research question. To enhance the quality, rigor, and reproducibility in the E-field modeling domain, we suggest standard reporting practices across studies and provide four recommendations.

Optimized high-definition tDCS in patients with skull defects and skull plates

Introduction

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to benefit patients with brain lesions or traumatic brain injury (TBI). These patients usually have skull defects with different sizes and electrical conductivities. There is very little data in the literature that show how to optimally stimulate these patients with the presence of skull defects.

Methods

Here we leveraged high-resolution (1 mm) realistic head models to explore the best montages targeting right beneath the skull defects with different sizes and conductivities. Specifically, open-source software ROAST was used to solve for the lead field on the publicly available MIDA model. Four different skull defects/plates were modeled with the center above the right primary motor cortex: a larger defect (10 cm diameter) modeled as either titanium or acrylic plate, and a smaller defect (2.5 cm diameter) modeled as either acute state filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or chronic state with scar tissue. Optimized stimulation with maximal intensity was run using ROAST targeting the right primary motor cortex.

Results

We show that optimized high-definition montages can achieve an average of 0.3 V/m higher stimulation intensities at the target compared to un-optimized montages (M1-SO or 4×1). Large skull defects with titanium or acrylic plates significantly reduce the stimulation intensity by about 80%, while small defects with acute (CSF) or chronic (scar) tissues significantly increase the stimulation intensity by about 200%. Furthermore, one can use M1-SO to achieve almost the same stimulation strength as the optimized montage if the skull has a large defect with titanium plate, and there is no significant difference in stimulation intensity between 4×1 montage and the optimized montage for small skull defects with scar tissue.

Discussion

Based on this work, future modeling studies leveraging individual anatomy of skull defects may help guide tDCS practice on patients with skull defects and skull plates.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex over Multiple Days Improves Motor Learning of a Complex Overhand Throwing Task

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) improves motor learning in relatively simple motor tasks performed with the hand and arm. However, it is unknown if tDCS can improve motor learning in complex motor tasks involving whole-body coordination with significant endpoint accuracy requirements. The primary purpose was to determine the influence of tDCS on motor learning over multiple days in a complex over-hand throwing task. This study utilized a double-blind, randomized, SHAM-controlled, between-subjects experimental design. Forty-six young adults were allocated to either a tDCS group or a SHAM group and completed three experimental sessions on three consecutive days at the same time of day. Each experimental session was identical and consisted of overhand throwing trials to a target in a pre-test block, five practice blocks performed simultaneously with 20 min of tDCS, and a post-test block. Overhand throwing performance was quantified as the endpoint error. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to obtain motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) from the first dorsal interosseus muscle to quantify changes in M1 excitability due to tDCS. Endpoint error significantly decreased over the three days of practice in the tDCS group but not in the SHAM group. MEP amplitude significantly increased in the tDCS group, but the MEP increases were not associated with increases in motor learning. These findings indicate that tDCS applied over multiple days can improve motor learning in a complex motor tasks in healthy young adults.