Transcutaneous spinal DC stimulation reduces pain sensitivity in humans

From brain to spinal cord: neuromodulation by direct current stimulation and its promising effects as a treatment option for restless legs syndrome

Neuromodulation is a fast-growing field of mostly non-invasive therapies, which includes spinal cord stimulation (SCS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), peripheral nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS). This narrative review offers an overview of the therapy options, especially of tDCS and tsDCS for chronic pain and spinal cord injury. Finally, we discuss the potential of tsDCS in Restless Legs Syndrome as a promising non-invasive, alternative therapy to medication therapy.

Anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation influences the amplitude of pain-related evoked potentials in healthy subjects

It has already been described that transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can selectively influence nociceptive evoked potentials. This study is the first aiming to prove an influence of tsDCS on pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) using concentric surface electrodes (CE), whose nociceptive specificity is still under discussion. 28 healthy subjects participated in this sham-controlled, double-blind cross-over study. All subjects underwent one session of anodal and one session of sham low-thoracic tsDCS. Before and after the intervention, PREP using CE, PREP-induced pain perception and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) were assessed on the right upper and lower limb. We found a decrease in PREP amplitude at the lower limb after sham stimulation, but not after anodal tsDCS, while SEP remained unchanged under all studied conditions. There was no difference between the effects of anodal tsDCS and sham stimulation on the studied parameters assessed at the upper limb. PREP-induced pain of the upper and lower limb increased after anodal tsDCS. The ability of influencing PREP using a CE at the spinal level in contrast to SEP suggests that PREP using CE follows the spinothalamic pathway and supports the assumption that it is specifically nociceptive. However, while mainly inhibitory effects on nociceptive stimuli have already been described, our results rather suggest that anodal tsDCS has a sensitizing effect. This may indicate that the mechanisms underlying the elicitation of PREP with CE are not the same as for the other nociceptive evoked potentials. The effects on the processing of different types of painful stimuli should be directly compared in future studies.

Long-term analgesic effect of trans-spinal direct current stimulation compared to non-invasive motor cortex stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome

The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) does not affect postural sway of young and healthy subjects during quiet upright standing

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is an effective non-invasive spinal cord electrical stimulation technique to induce neuromodulation of local and distal neural circuits of the central nervous system (CNS). Applied to the spinal cord lumbosacral region, tsDCS changes electrophysiological responses of the motor, proprioceptive and nociceptive pathways, alters the performance of some lower limb motor tasks and can even modulate the behavior of supramedullary neuronal networks. In this study an experimental protocol was conducted to verify if tsDCS (5 mA, 20 minutes) of two different polarizations, applied over the lumbosacral region (tenth thoracic vertebrae (T10)), can induce changes in postural sway oscillations of young healthy individuals during quiet standing. A novel initialization of the electrical stimulation was developed to improve subject blinding to the different stimulus conditions including the sham trials. Measures of postural sway, both global and structural, were computed before, during and following the DC stimulation period. The results indicated that, for the adopted conditions, tsDCS did not induce statistically significant changes in postural sway of young healthy individuals during quiet standing.

Trans-Spinal Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Functional Rehabilitation after Spinal Cord Injury: Review

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most debilitating injuries in the world. Complications after SCI, such as respiratory issues, bowel/bladder incontinency, pressure ulcers, autonomic dysreflexia, spasticity, pain, etc., lead to immense suffering, a remarkable reduction in life expectancy, and even premature death. Traditional rehabilitations for people with SCI are often insignificant or ineffective due to the severity and complexity of the injury. However, the recent development of noninvasive electrical neuromodulation treatments to the spinal cord have shed a ray of hope for these individuals to regain some of their lost functions, a reduction in secondary complications, and an improvement in their life quality. For this review, 250 articles were screened and about 150 were included to summarize the two most promising noninvasive spinal cord electrical stimulation methods of SCI rehabilitation treatment, namely, trans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) and trans-spinal pulsed current stimulation (tsPCS). Both treatments have demonstrated good success in not only improving the sensorimotor function, but also autonomic functions. Due to the noninvasive nature and lower costs of these treatments, in the coming years, we expect these treatments to be integrated into regular rehabilitation therapies worldwide.

Effects of Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) in Patients With Chronic Pain: A Clinical and Neurophysiological Study

Background and Aims: Chronic pain is a complex clinical condition, often devastating for patients and unmanageable with pharmacological treatments. Converging evidence suggests that transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) might represent a complementary therapy in managing chronic pain. In this randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled crossover study, we assessed tsDCS effects in chronic pain patients.

Methods: Sixteen patients (aged 65.06 ± 16.16 years, eight women) with chronic pain of different etiology underwent sham and anodal tsDCS (anode over the tenth thoracic vertebra, cathode over the somatosensory cortical area: 2.5 mA, 20 min, 5 days for 1 week). As outcomes, we considered the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), and the components of the lower limb flexion reflex (LLFR), i.e., RIII threshold, RII latency and area, RIII latency and area, and flexion reflex (FR) total area. Assessments were conducted before (T0), immediately at the end of the treatment (T1), after 1 week (T2) and 1 month (T3).

Results: Compared to sham, anodal tsDCS reduced RIII area at T2 (p = 0.0043) and T3 (p = 0.0012); similarly, FR total area was reduced at T3 (p = 0.03). Clinically, anodal tsDCS dampened VAS at T3 (p = 0.015), and NPSI scores at T1 (p = 0.0012), and T3 (p = 0.0015), whereas sham condition left them unchanged. Changes in VAS and NPSI scores linearly correlated with the reduction in LLFR areas (p = 0.0004).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that tsDCS could modulate nociceptive processing and pain perception in chronic pain syndromes.

Effects of Transspinal Direct Current Stimulation on Cycling Perception of Effort and Time to Exhaustion

ABSTRACT

Ciccone, AB, Fry, AC, Emerson, DM, Gallagher, PM, Herda, TJ, and Weir, JP. Effects of transspinal direct current stimulation on cycling perception of effort and time to exhaustion. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 347-352, 2021-In the past decade, researchers have investigated the efficacy of transspinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on the central nervous system and afferent neuron function in humans. Recently, data have suggested it may be possible for such tsDCS-induced changes in neuromuscular function to enhance performance. This study used noninvasive thoracic spine tsDCS to determine if cycling performance and perception of effort could be modulated by tsDCS. In 3 different stimulation conditions, anodal, cathodal, and sham, subjects cycled at 80% of their maximal aerobic capacity until exhaustion and reported their rating of perceived exertion (RPE) every minute. From this period, we compared the RPE responses over the first 3 minutes and time to exhaustion. There was no significant difference in time to exhaustion between anodal (408 ± 121 seconds), cathodal (413 ± 168 seconds), and sham (440 ± 189 seconds) conditions (p = 0.58). There was no significant difference in RPE from minutes 1-3 (collapsed across time) between anodal (12.9 ± 2.4 arbitrary units (AUs)), cathodal (13.3 ± 2.2 AUs), and sham (12.9 ± 2.1 AUs) conditions (p = 0.51). These data suggest tsDCS condition did not influence cycling performance or perception of effort during high-intensity cycling. Therefore, thoracic spine and lower abdominal montage delivering a current density of 0.071 mA·cm-2 for 20 minutes likely does not substantially improve high-intensity cycling work capacity. Therefore, more research is needed to investigate the efficacy of tsDCS and which stimulation methods may and may not enhance human performance.

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation shows no effect on paired stimulation suppression of the somatosensory cortex

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a safe and convenient method of neuromodulation. It has been proven to alter sensory processing at cervicomedullary level by amplitude changes of the P30 response of tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (TN SEPs). With knowledge that tsDCS affects cortical circuits, we hypothesized that tsDCS may also affect intracortical excitability of the somatosensory cortex assessed by paired stimulation suppression (PSS). Fourteen healthy men were included in this prospective, single-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study. Single (SS) and paired stimulation (PS) TN SEPs were recorded over the scalp before, immediately as well as 30 and 60 min after applying 15 min of tsDCS over the twelfth thoracic vertebra. Each volunteer underwent three independent and randomized sessions of either cathodal, anodal or sham stimulation. tsDCS showed no effect on peak-to-peak amplitudes or latencies of cortical P40-N50 response after SS. Furthermore, tsDCS failed to induce significant changes on amplitude ratios of PSS, thus showing no impact on intracortical excitability of the somatosensory cortex in healthy subjects. Further research is required to reveal the different mechanisms and to strengthen clinical use of this promising technique.

Quantitative sensory phenotyping in chronic neuropathic pain patients treated with unilateral L4-dorsal root ganglion stimulation

Background

In a previous study, we reported that selective dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG_STIM) at DRG level L4 promoted a favorable outcome for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients along with DRG_STIM-related changes of inflammatory biomarkers in blood and saliva. The impact on somatosensation is largely unknown. Herein, we assessed the quantitative sensory profile to quantify L4-DRG_STIM effects in CRPS patients.

Methods

Twelve refractory CRPS patients (4 female; 8 male; mean age 69 ± 9 years) received standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol at baseline and after 3 months of unilateral L4-DRG_STIM assessing nociceptive and non-nociceptive thermal and mechanical sensitivity of the knee affected by CRPS and the contralateral non-painful knee area.

Results

At baseline, CRPS subjects showed significantly increased thresholds for warmth, tactile and vibration detection (WDT, MDT and VDT) and exaggerated pain summation (WUR). After 3 months of unilateral L4-DRG_STIM all pain parameters exhibited trends towards normalization of sensitivity accumulating to a significant overall normalization for pain sensitivity (effect size: 0.91, p < 0.01), while with the one exception of WDT all non-nociceptive QST parameters remained unchanged. Overall change of non-nociceptive detection was negligible (effect size: 0.25, p > 0.40). Notably, reduction of pain summation (WUR) correlated significantly with pain reduction after 3 months of L4-DRG_STIM.

Conclusions

Selective L4-DRG_STIM lowered ongoing pain in CRPS patients and evoked significant normalization in the pain domain of the somatosensory profile. Thermoreception and mechanoreception remained unchanged. However, larger randomized, sham-controlled trials are highly warranted to shed more light on effects and mechanisms of dorsal root ganglion stimulation on quantitative sensory characteristics.

The study protocol was registered at the 15.11.2016 on German Register for Clinical Trials (DRKS ID 00011267).

https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00011267

Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that has been widely studied for the treatment of chronic pain. It is considered a promising and safe alternative pain therapy. Different targets have been tested, each having their own particular mechanisms for modulating pain perception.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the current state of the art of tDCS to manage pain and future strategies to optimize tDCS' effects. Current strategies include primary motor cortex tDCS, prefrontal tDCS and tDCS combined with behavioral interventions while future strategies, on the other hand, include high-intensity tDCS, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, cerebellar tDCS, home-based tDCS, and tDCS with extended number of sessions.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

It has been shown that the stimulation of the prefrontal and primary motor cortex is efficient for pain reduction while a few other new strategies, such as high-intensity tDCS and network-based tDCS, are believed to induce strong neuroplastic effects, although the underlying neural mechanisms still need to be fully uncovered. Hence, conventional tDCS approaches demonstrated promising effects to manage pain and new strategies are under development to enhance tDCS effects and make this approach more easily available by using, for instance, home-based devices.

Beyond the target area: an integrative view of tDCS-induced motor cortex modulation in patients and athletes

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive technique used to modulate neural tissue. Neuromodulation apparently improves cognitive functions in several neurologic diseases treatment and sports performance. In this study, we present a comprehensive, integrative review of tDCS for motor rehabilitation and motor learning in healthy individuals, athletes and multiple neurologic and neuropsychiatric conditions. We also report on neuromodulation mechanisms, main applications, current knowledge including areas such as language, embodied cognition, functional and social aspects, and future directions. We present the use and perspectives of new developments in tDCS technology, namely high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) which promises to overcome one of the main tDCS limitation (i.e., low focality) and its application for neurological disease, pain relief, and motor learning/rehabilitation. Finally, we provided information regarding the Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) in clinical applications, Cerebellar tDCS (ctDCS) and its influence on motor learning, and TMS combined with electroencephalography (EEG) as a tool to evaluate tDCS effects on brain function.

Differential modulation of pressure pain threshold in response to transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation with physical activity level

This study investigated the interaction between physical activity level and responses to transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) as reflected in changes in pressure pain threshold (PPT) in the lower extremity. Participants (n = 35, 15 males) consisted of physically active young adults. PPTs were determined at three sites (thigh, leg and foot) on the dominant leg before and after 20-min of anodal tsDCS applied at mid-thoracic level. Based on a questionnaire, participants were assigned to either a low-moderately active (n = 21) or highly active group (n = 14). At baseline, participants in the two activity groups exhibited comparable PPTs. After the intervention, PPTs were significantly elevated at all sites at 5-min and 30-min post-tsDCS. An interaction was found between activity groups and tsDCS-induced changes at the thigh site owing to a larger elevation in PPTs in the highly active group. These results corroborate previous findings regarding antalgic effects of tsDCS and point to the role of physical activity level as a potential factor susceptible to modulate responses to tsDCS interventions.

Pilot study of feasibility and effect of anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on chronic neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

A single-blind crossover study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate neuropathic pain in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) after the application of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS).

SETTING

Outpatient Clinic of the Rehabilitation Department, Seoul National University Hospital.

METHODS

The effect of single sessions of both anodal and sham tsDCS (2 mA, 20 min) on chronic neuropathic pain in ten volunteers with complete motor cervical SCI was assessed. The active electrode was placed over the spinal process of the tenth thoracic vertebra and the reference electrode, at the top of the head. Pre- to post-tsDCS intervention changes in pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS), patient global assessment, and present pain intensity (PPI) were assessed before and after the tsDCS session (immediately post stimulation, and at 1 and 2 h post stimulation).

RESULTS

All participants underwent the stimulation procedure without dropout. Our results showed no significant pre- to post-treatment difference in pain intensity between the active and sham tsDCS groups. Only in the sham tsDCS stimulation, NRS and PPI scores were reduced after the stimulation session. Furthermore, in the mixed effect model analysis, the response in the second period appeared to be more favorable.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a single session of anodal tsDCS with the montage used in this study is feasible but does not have a significant analgesic effect in individuals with chronic cervical SCI.

SPONSORSHIP

The study was funded by Seoul National University Hospital (No. 0420160470) and Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service.

Anodal Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) Selectively Inhibits the Synaptic Efficacy of Nociceptive Transmission at Spinal Cord Level

Recently studies have aimed at developing transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) as a non-invasive technique to modulate spinal function in humans. Independent studies evaluating its after-effects on nociceptive or non-nociceptive somatosensory responses have reported comparable effects suggesting that tsDCS impairs axonal conduction of both the spino-thalamic and the medial lemniscus tracts. The present study aimed to better understand how tsDCS affects, in humans, the spinal transmission of nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory inputs. We compared the after-effects of anodal low-thoracic, anodal cervical and sham tsDCS on the perception and brain responses elicited by laser stimuli selectively activating Aδ-thermonociceptors of the spinothalamic system and vibrotactile stimuli selectively activating low-threshold Aβ-mechanoreceptors of the lemniscal system, delivered to the hands and feet. Low-thoracic tsDCS selectively and significantly affected the LEP-N2 wave elicited by nociceptive stimulation of the lower limbs, without affecting the LEP-N2 wave elicited by nociceptive stimulation of the upper limbs, and without affecting the SEP-N2 wave elicited by vibrotactile stimulation of either limb. This selective and segmental effect indicates that the neuromodulatory after-effects of tsDCS cannot be explained by anodal blockade of axonal conduction and, instead, are most probably due to a segmental effect on the synaptic efficacy of the local processing and/or transmission of nociceptive inputs in the dorsal horn.

Concurrent electrical cervicomedullary stimulation and cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation result in a stimulus interaction

NEW FINDINGS

What is the central question of this study? We previously showed that the motor pathway is not modified after cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) applied using anterior-posterior electrodes. Here, we examine the motor pathway during stimulation. What is the main finding and its importance? We show that electrically elicited muscle responses to cervicomedullary stimulation are modified during tsDCS, whereas magnetically elicited responses are not. Modelling reveals electrical field modifications during concurrent tsDCS and electrical cervicomedullary stimulation. Changes in muscle response probably result from electrical field modifications rather than physiological changes. Care should be taken when applying electrical stimuli simultaneously. Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can modulate neuronal excitability within the human spinal cord; however, few studies have used tsDCS at a cervical level. This study aimed to characterize cervical tsDCS further by observing its acute effects on motor responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation and cervicomedullary stimulation. In both studies 1 and 2, participants (study 1, n = 8, four female; and study 2, n = 8, three female) received two periods of 10 min, 3 mA cervical tsDCS on the same day through electrodes placed in an anterior-posterior configuration over the neck; one period with the cathode posterior (c-tsDCS) and the other with the anode posterior (a-tsDCS). In study 1, electrically elicited cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (eCMEPs) and transcranial magnetic stimulation-elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured in biceps brachii and flexor carpi radialis before, during and after each tsDCS period. In study 2, eCMEPs and magnetically elicited CMEPs (mCMEPs) were measured before, during and after each tsDCS period. For study 3, computational modelling was used to observe possible interactions of cervical tsDCS and electrical cervicomedullary stimulation. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that eCMEPs were larger during c-tsDCS and smaller during a-tsDCS compared with those elicited when tsDCS was off (P < 0.05), with no changes in MEPs or mCMEPs. Modelling revealed that eCMEP changes might result from modifications of the electrical field direction and magnitude when combined with cervical tsDCS. Bidirectional eCMEP changes are likely to be caused by an interaction between cervical tsDCS and electrical cervicomedullary stimulation; therefore, care should be taken when combining such electrical stimuli in close proximity.

Influence of transcutaneous spinal stimulation on human LTP-like pain amplification. A randomized, double-blind study in volunteers

OBJECTIVE

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) has been proven to affect nociceptive signal processing. We designed a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study to investigate whether tsDCS applied before or after inducing long-term potentiation-(LTP)-like hyperalgesia may decrease nociceptive sensitivity.

METHODS

In healthy volunteers, tsDCS (2.5mA, 15min) was applied to the thoracic spine prior (n=14) or immediately following (n=12) electrical high-frequency stimulation (HFS) to the thigh, inducing hyperalgesia. Mechanical and electrical perception were assessed before HFS stimulation and at three time points following HFS stimulation (all within 90min of HFS). Subjects took part in three separate sessions to test effects of anodal, cathodal, or sham tsDCS.

RESULTS

Within 60minHFS led to unilateral changes on the conditioned side: mechanical pain thresholds tended to decrease and electrical detection thresholds significantly decreased (p<0.001); pain ratings measured using the numerical rating scale (NRS) increased for electrical stimuli (p<0.01) and two categories of mechanical stimuli ("Light(8-64mN)": p=ns; "Heavy(128-512mN)": p<0.01). Irrespective of stimulation order or polarity, tsDCS could not influence nociceptive sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Hyperalgesia was adequately induced, but tsDCS had no effect on HFS-induced sensitization.

SIGNIFICANCE

While tsDCS has been shown to affect pain measures, our results suggest irrespective of time of stimulation or polarity that tsDCS may be less effective in modulating pain in a sensitized state in healthy subjects.

The effects of cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb in humans

Non-invasive, weak direct current stimulation can induce changes in excitability of underlying neural tissue. Many studies have used transcranial direct current stimulation to induce changes in the brain, however more recently a number of studies have used transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation to induce changes in the spinal cord. This study further characterises the effects following cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on motor pathways supplying the upper limb. In Study 1, on two separate days, participants (n = 12, 5 F) received 20 minutes of either real or sham direct current stimulation at 3 mA through electrodes placed in an anterior-posterior configuration over the neck (anode anterior). Biceps brachii, flexor carpi radialis and first dorsal interosseous responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (motor evoked potentials) and cervicomedullary stimulation (cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials) were measured before and after real or sham stimulation. In Study 2, on two separate days, participants (n = 12, 7 F) received either real or sham direct current stimulation in the same way as for Study 1. Before and after real or sham stimulation, median nerve stimulation elicited M waves and H reflexes in the flexor carpi radialis. H-reflex recruitment curves and homosynaptic depression of the H reflex were assessed. Results show that the effects of real and sham direct current stimulation did not differ for motor evoked potentials or cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials for any muscle, nor for H-reflex recruitment curve parameters or homosynaptic depression. Cervical transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation with the parameters described here does not modify motor responses to corticospinal stimulation nor does it modify H reflexes of the upper limb. These results are important for the emerging field of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation.