Transcranial direct current stimulation to primary motor area improves hand dexterity and selective attention in chronic stroke

The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation on upper extremity motor function after stroke: A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of different stimulation polarities

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been studied extensively. The cathodic (c-tDCS), anodic (a-tDCS), and bihemispheric stimulation have demonstrated efficacy in the management of the paretic upper extremity (UE) after stroke, but it has not been determined which stimulation polarity has, so far, shown the best results.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the available evidence to determine which tDCS polarity has the best results in improving UE motor function after stroke.

METHODS

PubMed, PEDro, Web of Science, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched. Different Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were combined for the search strategy, to cover all studies that performed a comparison between different tDCS configurations focused on UE motor rehabilitation in people with lived experience of stroke.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies remained for qualitative analysis and 12 for quantitative analysis. Non-significant differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained for c-tDCS versus a-tDCS (g = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.13; 0.33, p = .39, N = 292), for a-tDCS versus bihemispheric (g = 0.02, 95% CI = -0.46; 0.42, p = .93, N = 81), and for c-tDCS versus bihemispheric (g = 0.09, 95% CI = -0.84; .66, p = .73, N = 100). No significant differences between the subgroups of the meta-analysis were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present meta-analysis showed no evidence that a stimulation polarity is superior to the others in the rehabilitation of UE motor function after stroke. A non-significant improvement trend was observed toward c-tDCS compared to a-tDCS.

Exploring the Prospects of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) as a Therapeutic Intervention for Post-Stroke Motor Recovery: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Stroke survivors often have motor impairments and related functional deficits. Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) is a rapidly evolving field that offers a wide range of capabilities for modulating brain function, and it is safe and inexpensive. It has the potential for widespread use for post-stroke motor recovery. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), and Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS) are three recognized tES techniques that have gained substantial attention in recent years but have different mechanisms of action. tDCS has been widely used in stroke motor rehabilitation, while applications of tACS and tRNS are very limited. The tDCS protocols could vary significantly, and outcomes are heterogeneous.

PURPOSE

the current review attempted to explore the mechanisms underlying commonly employed tES techniques and evaluate their prospective advantages and challenges for their applications in motor recovery after stroke.

CONCLUSION

tDCS could depolarize and hyperpolarize the potentials of cortical motor neurons, while tACS and tRNS could target specific brain rhythms and entrain neural networks. Despite the extensive use of tDCS, the complexity of neural networks calls for more sophisticated modifications like tACS and tRNS.

Comparative efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation therapies for recovery of global cognitive function, attention, memory, and executive function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Which noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) treatment - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) - is more beneficial for stroke patients' cognitive rehabilitation is still up for debate.

Objectives

Our goal is to provide an overview of the research on the effectiveness and safety of various NIBS protocols.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

This NMA compared any active NIBS versus sham stimulation in adult stroke survivors to enhance cognitive function, with a focus on global cognitive function (GCF), attention, memory, and executive function (EF) using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The NMA statistical approach was built on a frequency framework. The effect size was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI). We compiled a relative ranking of the competing interventions based on their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

NMA showed that high-frequency repeated TMS (HF-rTMS) improved GCF compared with sham stimulation (SMD = 1.95; 95% CI: 0.47-3.43), while dual-tDCS improved memory performance versus sham stimulation significantly (SMD = 6.38; 95% CI: 3.51-9.25). However, various NIBS stimulation protocols revealed no significant impact on enhancing attention, executive function, or activities of daily living. There was no significant difference between the active stimulation protocols for TMS and tDCS and sham stimulation in terms of safety. Subgroup analysis demonstrated an effect favoring activation site of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (SUCRA = 89.1) for enhancing GCF and bilateral DLPFC (SUCRA = 99.9) stimulation for enhancing memory performance.

Conclusion

The HF-rTMS over the left DLPFC appears to be the most promising NIBS therapeutic option for improving global cognitive performance after stroke, according to a comparison of numerous NIBS protocols. Furthermore, for patients with post-stroke memory impairment, dual-tDCS over bilateral DLPFC may be more advantageous than other NIBS protocols. Both tDCS and TMS are reasonably safe.

Registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42022304865.

Short term effects of anodal cerebellar vs. anodal cerebral transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke patients, a randomized control trial

Background

Balance and gait impairments are major motor deficits in stroke patients that require intensive neuro-rehabilitation. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation is a neuro-modulatory technique recently used in stroke patients for balance and gait improvement. Majority of studies focusing on tDCS have assessed its effects on cerebral motor cortex and more recently cerebellum as well but to our best knowledge the comparison of stimulating these two regions in stroke patients is not investigated so far.

Objective

The current study aimed to compare the effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on cerebellar and cerebral motor cortex M1 in stroke patients.

Materials and methods

This double-blinded, parallel, randomized, sham controlled trial included 66 patients with a first-ever ischemic stroke were recruited into three groups; Cerebellar stimulation group (CbSG), M1 Stimulation Group (MSG), and Sham stimulation group (SSG). A total of three sessions of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation were given on consecutive days in addition to non-immersive virtual reality using Xbox 360 with kinect. Anodal tDCS with an intensity of 2 mA was applied for a duration of 20 min. Primary outcome measures berg balance scale (BBS), timed up and go test (TUG), BESTest Balance Evaluation-Systems Test (BESTest) and secondary outcomes measures montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), mini mental state examination (MMSE), Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT), twenty five feet walk test (25FWT), six minute walk test (6MWT), and tDCS Adverse Effects was assessed before initiation of treatment (T0) and at the end of third session of stimulation (T1).

Results

The results of between group's analysis using mean difference showed a significant difference with p-value <0.05 for balance (BBS, TUG, BESTest), walking ability (6MWT, 25FWT), risk of fall (JHFRAT). Cognitive function did not show any significant change among the groups for MoCA with p-value >0.05 but MMSE was improved having significant p-value (p = 0.013). However, 6MWT and 25FWT showed non-significant results for both between group and within group analysis. In pairwise comparison both the cerebellar and cerebral stimulation groups showed Significant difference with p-value <0.05 in comparison to sham stimulation; BBS (cerebellar vs. sham p ≤ 0.001, cerebral vs. sham p = 0.011), TUG (cerebellar vs. sham p = 0.001, cerebral vs. sham p = 0.041), Bestest (cerebellar vs. sham p = 0.007, cerebral vs. sham p = 0.003). Whereas for JHFRAT only cerebellar stimulation in comparison to sham and motor cortex stimulation showed significant improvements (cerebellar vs. M1 p = 0.037, cerebellar vs. sham p = 0.037). MMSE showed significant improvement in M1 stimulation (M1 vs. cerebellar p = 0.036, M1 vs. sham p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Findings of the study suggest anodal tDCS stimulation of the cerebellum and cerebral motor cortex both improves gait, balance and risk of fall in stroke patients. However, both stimulation sites do not induce any notable improvement in cognitive function. Effects of both stimulation sites have similar effects on mobility in stroke patients.

Can Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhance Functionality in Older Adults? A Systematic Review

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, easy to administer, well-tolerated, and safe technique capable of affecting brain excitability, both at the cortical and cerebellum levels. However, its effectiveness has not been sufficiently assessed in all population segments or clinical applications. This systematic review aimed at compiling and summarizing the currently available scientific evidence about the effect of tDCS on functionality in older adults over 60 years of age. A search of databases was conducted to find randomized clinical trials that applied tDCS versus sham stimulation in the above-mentioned population. No limits were established in terms of date of publication. A total of 237 trials were found, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Finally, nine studies were analyzed, including 260 healthy subjects with average age between 61.0 and 85.8 years. Seven of the nine included studies reported superior improvements in functionality variables following the application of tDCS compared to sham stimulation. Anodal tDCS applied over the motor cortex may be an effective technique for improving balance and posture control in healthy older adults. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the most effective protocols and to clarify potential benefits for older adults.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.

Enhancing Brain Plasticity to Promote Stroke Recovery

Stroke disturbs both the structural and functional integrity of the brain. The understanding of stroke pathophysiology has improved greatly in the past several decades. However, effective therapy is still limited, especially for patients who are in the subacute or chronic phase. Multiple novel therapies have been developed to improve clinical outcomes by improving brain plasticity. These approaches either focus on improving brain remodeling and restoration or on constructing a neural bypass to avoid brain injury. This review describes emerging therapies, including modern rehabilitation, brain stimulation, cell therapy, brain-computer interfaces, and peripheral nervous transfer, and highlights treatment-induced plasticity. Key evidence from basic studies on the underlying mechanisms is also briefly discussed. These insights should lead to a deeper understanding of the overall neural circuit changes, the clinical relevance of these changes in stroke, and stroke treatment progress, which will assist in the development of future approaches to enhance brain function after stroke.

Effect of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex on Elbow Flexor Muscle Strength in the Very Old

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Muscle weakness predisposes older adults to a fourfold increase in functional limitations and has previously been associated with reduced motor cortex excitability in aging adults. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a single session of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex would increase elbow flexion muscle strength and electromyographic (EMG) amplitude in very old individuals.

METHODS

Eleven very old individuals-85.8 (4.3) years-performed 3 maximal isometric elbow flexion contractions before and after 20 minutes of sham or anodal tDCS on different days. Order of stimulation was randomized, and the study participants and investigators were blinded to condition. In addition, voluntary activation capacity of the elbow flexors was determined by comparing voluntary and electrically evoked forces.

RESULTS

Anodal tDCS did not alter muscle strength or EMG activity in comparison to sham stimulation. Elbow flexion voluntary activation capacity was very high among the study participants: 99.3% (1.8%).

CONCLUSION

Contrary to our hypothesis, we observed no effect of anodal tDCS and no impairment in elbow flexor voluntary activation capacity in the very old. Whether anodal tDCS would exert a positive effect and support our initial hypothesis in another muscle group that does exhibit impairments in voluntary activation in older adults is a question that is still to be addressed.

Pragmatic Solutions for Stroke Recovery and Improved Quality of Life in Low- and Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Review

Background: Given the limited healthcare resources in low and middle income countries (LMICs), effective rehabilitation strategies that can be realistically adopted in such settings are required. Objective: A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify pragmatic solutions and outcomes capable of enhancing stroke recovery and quality of life of stroke survivors for low- and middle- income countries. Methods: PubMed, HINARI, and Directory of Open Access Journals databases were searched for published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) till November 2018. Only completed trials published in English with non-pharmacological interventions on adult stroke survivors were included in the review while published protocols, pilot studies and feasibility analysis of trials were excluded. Obtained data were synthesized thematically and descriptively analyzed. Results: One thousand nine hundred and ninety six studies were identified while 347 (65.22% high quality) RCTs were found to be eligible for the review. The most commonly assessed variables (and outcome measure utility) were activities of daily living [75.79% of the studies, with Barthel Index (37.02%)], motor function [66.57%; with Fugl Meyer scale (71.88%)], and gait [31.12%; with 6 min walk test (38.67%)]. Majority of the innovatively high technology interventions such as robot therapy (95.24%), virtual reality (94.44%), transcranial direct current stimulation (78.95%), transcranial magnetic stimulation (88.0%) and functional electrical stimulation (85.00%) were conducted in high income countries. Several traditional and low-cost interventions such as constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), resistant and aerobic exercises (R&AE), task oriented therapy (TOT), body weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) were reported to significantly contribute to the recovery of motor function, activity, participation, and improvement of quality of life after stroke. Conclusion: Several pragmatic, in terms of affordability, accessibility and utility, stroke rehabilitation solutions, and outcome measures that can be used in resource-limited settings were found to be effective in facilitating and enhancing post-stroke recovery and quality of life.

Peripheral Electrical Stimulation Paired With Movement-Related Cortical Potentials Improves Isometric Muscle Strength and Voluntary Activation Following Stroke

Background

Endogenous paired associative stimulation (ePAS) is a neuromodulatory intervention that has potential to aid stroke recovery. ePAS involves pairing endogenous electroencephalography (EEG) signals known as movement-related cortical potentials (MRCPs), with peripheral electrical stimulation. Previous studies have used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to demonstrate changes in corticomotor excitability following ePAS. However, the use of TMS as a measure in stroke research is limited by safety precautions, intolerance, and difficulty generating a measurable response in more severely affected individuals. We were interested in evaluating the effect of ePAS using more feasible measures in people with stroke. This study asks whether ePAS produces immediate improvements in the primary outcomes of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and total neuromuscular fatigue of the dorsiflexor muscles, and in the secondary outcomes of muscle power, voluntary activation (VA), central fatigue, peripheral fatigue, and electromyography activity.

Method

In this repeated-measures cross-over study, 15 participants with chronic stroke completed two interventions, ePAS and sham, in a randomized order. During ePAS, 50 repetitions of visually cued dorsiflexion were completed, while single pulses of electrical stimulation were delivered to the deep branch of the common peroneal nerve. Each somatosensory volley was timed to arrive in the primary motor cortex at the peak negativity of the MRCP. Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models were used to analyze the primary and secondary data, respectively.

Results

There was a statistically significant increase in dorsiflexor MVIC immediately following the ePAS intervention (mean increase 7 N), compared to the sham intervention (mean change 0 N) (univariate between-condition analysis p = 0.047). The multivariate analysis revealed a statistically significant effect of ePAS on VA of the tibialis anterior muscle, such that ePAS increased VA by 7 percentage units (95% confidence interval 1.3–12.7%). There was no statistically significant effect on total neuromuscular fatigue, muscle power, or other secondary measures.

Conclusion

A single session of ePAS can significantly increase isometric muscle strength and VA in people with chronic stroke. The findings confirm that ePAS has a central neuromodulatory mechanism and support further exploration of its potential as an adjunct to stroke rehabilitation. In addition, the findings offer alternative, feasible outcome measures for future research.

Clinical trial registration

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000838314 (www.anzctr.org.au), Universal Trial Number U111111953714.

Evaluating the effects of tDCS in stroke patients using functional outcomes: a systematic review

Background and purpose: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been extensively studied over the past 20 years to promote functional motor recovery after stroke. However, tDCS clinical relevance still needs to be determined. The present systematic review aims to determine whether tDCS applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) in stroke patients can have a positive effect on functional motor outcomes.Materials and methods: Two databases (Medline & Scopus) were searched for randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trials pertaining to the use of M1 tDCS on cerebral stroke patients, and its effects on validated functional motor outcomes. When data were provided, effect sizes were calculated. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108157Results: 46 studies (n = 1291 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall study quality was good (7.69/10 on the PEDro scale). Over half (56.5%) the studies were on chronic stroke patients. There seemed to be a certain pattern of recurring parameters, but tDCS protocols still remain heterogeneous. Overall results were positive (71.7% of studies found that tDCS has positive results on functional motor outcomes). Effect-sizes ranged from 0 to 1.33. No severe adverse events were reported.Conclusion: Despite heterogeneous stimulation parameters, outcomes and patient demographics, tDCS seems to be complementary to classical and novel rehabilitation approaches. With minimal adverse effects (if screening parameters are respected), none of which were serious, and a high potential to improve recovery when using optimal parameters (i.e.: 20 min of stimulation, at 2 mA with 25 or 35cm² electrodes that are regularly humidified), tDCS could potentially be ready for clinical applications.Implications for RehabilitationtDCS could potentially be ready for clinical application.Evidence of very low to very high quality is available on the effectiveness of tDCS to improve motor control following stroke.This should with caution be focused on the primary motor cortex.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Hand Dexterity in Multiple Sclerosis: A Design for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cerebellar and motor tracts are frequently impaired in multiple sclerosis (MS). Altered hand dexterity constitutes a challenge in clinical practice, since medical treatment shows very limited benefits in this domain. Cerebellar control is made via several cerebellocortical pathways, of which the most studied one links the cerebellum to the contralateral motor cortex via the contralateral ventro-intermediate nucleus of the thalamus influencing the corticospinal outputs. Modulating the activity of the cerebellum or of the motor cortex could be of help.

METHOD

The main interest here is to evaluate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a noninvasive brain stimulation technique, in treating altered dexterity in MS. Forty-eight patients will be recruited in a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, and crossover study. They will randomly undergo one of the three interventions: anodal tDCS over the primary motor area, cathodal tDCS over the cerebellum, or sham. Each block consists of five consecutive daily sessions with direct current (2 mA), lasting 20 min each. The primary outcome will be the improvement in manual dexterity according to the change in the time required to complete the nine-hole pegboard task. Secondary outcomes will include fatigue, pain, spasticity, and mood. Patients' safety and satisfaction will be rated.

DISCUSSION

Due to its cost-effective, safe, and easy-to-use profile, motor or cerebellar tDCS may constitute a potential tool that might improve dexterity in MS patients and therefore ameliorate their quality of life.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to Improve Gait in Multiple Sclerosis: A Timing Window Comparison

Unilateral weakness of the lower limb is a hallmark of multiple sclerosis (MS) and a significant contributor to the progressive worsening of walking ability. There are currently no effective rehabilitation strategies targeting strength asymmetries and/or gait impairments in people with MS (PwMS). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has improved motor outcomes in various populations, but the effect of tDCS on gait in PwMS and the ideal timing window of tDCS application are still unknown. This study investigated the effects of tDCS, either before or during a 6 min walk test (6MWT), on the distance walked and gait characteristics in PwMS. Twelve participants were recruited and randomly assigned into BEFORE or DURING groups (both n = 6). The BEFORE group received stimulation before performing a 6MWT (sham/2 mA, 13 min). The DURING group received stimulation only during a 6MWT (sham/2 mA, 6 min). Stimulation was over the more MS-affected primary motor cortex (M1). Distance walked and gait characteristics of the walk were the primary and secondary outcomes. The results indicated a significant decrease in distance walked in the DURING group (p = 0.026) and a significant increase in gait velocity in the BEFORE group (p = 0.04). These changes were accompanied by trends (p < 0.1) in distance walked, gait velocity, and stride length. Overall, the results of this study suggest that tDCS performed before a 6MWT might be more effective than tDCS during a 6MWT and that a single session of tDCS may not be sufficient to influence gait. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier #NCT03757819.

Low-intensity contralesional electrical theta burst stimulation modulates ipsilesional excitability and enhances stroke recovery

Targeting interhemispheric inhibition using brain stimulation has shown potential for enhancing stroke recovery. Following stroke, increased inhibition originating from the contralesional hemisphere impairs motor activation in ipsilesional areas. We have previously reported that low-intensity electrical theta burst stimulation (TBS) applied to an implanted electrode in the contralesional rat motor cortex reduces interhemispheric inhibition, and improves functional recovery when commenced three days after cortical injury. Here we apply this approach at more clinically relevant later time points and measure recovery from photothrombotic stroke, following three weeks of low-intensity intermittent TBS (iTBS), continuous TBS (cTBS) or sham stimulation applied to the contralesional motor cortex. Interhemispheric inhibition and cellular excitability were measured in the same rats from single pyramidal neurons in the peri-infarct area, using in vivo intracellular recording. A minimal dose of iTBS did not enhance motor function when applied beginning one month after stroke. However both a high and a low dose of iTBS improved recovery to a similar degree when applied 10 days after stroke, with the degree of recovery positively correlated with ipsilesional excitability. The final level of interhemispheric inhibition was negatively correlated with excitability, but did not independently correlate with functional recovery. In contrast, contralesional cTBS left recovery unaltered, but decreased ipsilesional excitability. These data support focal contralesional iTBS and not cTBS as an intervention for enhancing stroke recovery and suggest that there is a complex relationship between functional recovery and interhemispheric inhibition, with both independently associated with ipsilesional excitability.

Modulation of Cerebellar Cortical Plasticity Using Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Poststroke Sensorimotor Function Recovery

BACKGROUND

Stroke affects widespread brain regions through interhemispheric connections by influencing bilateral motor activity. Several noninvasive brain stimulation techniques have proved their capacity to compensate the functional loss by manipulating the neural activity of alternative pathways. Over the past few decades, brain stimulation therapies have been tailored within the theoretical framework of modulation of cortical excitability to enhance adaptive plasticity after stroke.

OBJECTIVE

However, considering the vast difference between animal and human cerebral cortical structures, it is important to approach specific neuronal target starting from the higher order brain structure for human translation. The present study focuses on stimulating the lateral cerebellar nucleus (LCN), which sends major cerebellar output to extensive cortical regions.

METHODS

In this study, in vivo stroke mouse LCN was exposed to low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU). After the LIFU exposure, animals underwent 4 weeks of rehabilitative training.

RESULTS

During the cerebellar LIFU session, motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were generated in both forelimbs accompanying excitatory sonication parameter. LCN stimulation group on day 1 after stroke significantly enhanced sensorimotor recovery compared with the group without stimulation. The recovery has maintained for a 4-week period in 2 behavior tests. Furthermore, we observed a significantly decreased level of brain edema and tissue swelling in the affected hemisphere 3 days after the stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first evidence showing that LIFU-induced cerebellar modulation could be an important strategy for poststroke recovery. A longer follow-up study is, however, necessary in order to fully confirm the effects of LIFU on poststroke recovery.

Synergistic effect of acupuncture and mirror therapy on post-stroke upper limb dysfunction: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Upper limb dysfunction is common after stroke, posing an important challenge for post-stroke rehabilitation. The clinical efficacy of acupuncture for the recovery of post-stroke upper limb function has been previously demonstrated. Mirror therapy (MT) has also been found to be effective. However, the effects of acupuncture and MT have not been systematically compared. This trial aims to elucidate the synergistic effects of acupuncture and MT on upper limb dysfunction after stroke.

Methods

A 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial will be conducted at the rehabilitation hospitals affiliated with Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. A total of 136 eligible subjects will be randomly divided into acupuncture treatment (AT), MT, combined treatment, and control groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. All subjects will receive conventional treatment. The interventions will be performed 5 days per week for 4 weeks. AT, MT, and combined treatment will be performed for 30 min per day (combined treatment: AT 15 min + MT 15 min). The primary outcomes in this study will be the mean change in scores on both the FMA and WMFT from baseline to 4 weeks intervention and at 12 weeks follow-up between the two groups and within groups. The secondary outcomes are the mean change in the scores on the Visual Analogue Scale, Stroke Impact Scale, and modified Barthel index. Medical abstraction of adverse events will be assessed at each visit.

Discussion

The results of this trial will demonstrate the synergistic effect of acupuncture and MT on upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke. In addition, whether AT and MT, either combined or alone, are more effective than the conventional treatment in the management of post-stroke upper limb dysfunction will also be determined.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-IOR-17011118. Registered on April 11, 2017. Version number: 01.2016.09.1.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2585-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Motor dexterity and strength depend upon integrity of the attention-control system

Simple voluntary movements (e.g., reaching or gripping) deteriorate with distraction, suggesting that the attention-control system—which suppresses distraction—influences motor control. Here, we tested the causal dependency of simple movements on attention control, and its neuroanatomical basis, in healthy elderly and patients with focal brain lesions. Not only did we find that attention control correlates with motor performance, correcting for lesion size, fatigue, etc., but we found a revealing pattern of dissociations: Severe motor impairment could occur with normal attention control whereas impaired attention control never occurred with disproportionately milder motor impairment—suggesting that attention control is required for normal motor performance. One implication is that a component of stroke paralysis arises from poor attentional control, which could itself be a therapeutic target.

Attention control (or executive control) is a higher cognitive function involved in response selection and inhibition, through close interactions with the motor system. Here, we tested whether influences of attention control are also seen on lower level motor functions of dexterity and strength—by examining relationships between attention control and motor performance in healthy-aged and hemiparetic-stroke subjects (n = 93 and 167, respectively). Subjects undertook simple-tracking, precision-hold, and maximum force-generation tasks, with each hand. Performance across all tasks correlated strongly with attention control (measured as distractor resistance), independently of factors such as baseline performance, hand use, lesion size, mood, fatigue, or whether distraction was tested during motor or nonmotor cognitive tasks. Critically, asymmetric dissociations occurred in all tasks, in that severe motor impairment coexisted with normal (or impaired) attention control whereas normal motor performance was never associated with impaired attention control (below a task-dependent threshold). This implies that dexterity and force generation require intact attention control. Subsequently, we examined how motor and attention-control performance mapped to lesion location and cerebral functional connectivity. One component of motor performance (common to both arms), as well as attention control, correlated with the anatomical and functional integrity of a cingulo-opercular “salience” network. Independently of this, motor performance difference between arms correlated negatively with the integrity of the primary sensorimotor network and corticospinal tract. These results suggest that the salience network, and its attention-control function, are necessary for virtually all volitional motor acts while its damage contributes significantly to the cardinal motor deficits of stroke.

Advancing non-invasive neuromodulation clinical trials in children: Lessons from perinatal stroke

Applications of non-invasive brain stimulation including therapeutic neuromodulation are expanding at an alarming rate. Increasingly established scientific principles, including directional modulation of well-informed cortical targets, are advancing clinical trial development. However, high levels of disease burden coupled with zealous enthusiasm may be getting ahead of rational research and evidence. Experience is limited in the developing brain where additional issues must be considered. Properly designed and meticulously executed clinical trials are essential and required to advance and optimize the potential of non-invasive neuromodulation without risking the well-being of children and families. Perinatal stroke causes most hemiplegic cerebral palsy and, as a focal injury of defined timing in an otherwise healthy brain, is an ideal human model of developmental plasticity. Advanced models of how the motor systems of young brains develop following early stroke are affording novel windows of opportunity for neuromodulation clinical trials, possibly directing neuroplasticity toward better outcomes. Reviewing the principles of clinical trial design relevant to neuromodulation and using perinatal stroke as a model, this article reviews the current and future issues of advancing such trials in children.

Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on visual perception function and performance capability of activities of daily living in stroke patients

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on visual perception and performance of activities of daily living in patients with stroke. [Subjects and Methods] Thirty subjects were assigned equally to a tDCS plus traditional occupational therapy group (experimental group) and a traditional occupational therapy group (control group). The intervention was implemented five times per week, 30 minutes each, for six weeks. In order to assess visual perception function before and after the intervention, the motor-free visual perception test (MVPT) was conducted, and in order to compare the performance of activities of daily living, the Functional Independence Measure scale was employed. [Results] According to the results, both groups improved in visual perception function and in performance of activities of daily living. Although there was no significant difference between the two groups, the experimental group exhibited higher scores. [Conclusion] In conclusion, the application of tDCS for the rehabilitation of patients with stroke may positively affect their visual perception and ability to perform activities of daily living.

Rehabilitation of Motor Function after Stroke: A Multiple Systematic Review Focused on Techniques to Stimulate Upper Extremity Recovery

Stroke is one of the leading causes for disability worldwide. Motor function deficits due to stroke affect the patients' mobility, their limitation in daily life activities, their participation in society and their odds of returning to professional activities. All of these factors contribute to a low overall quality of life. Rehabilitation training is the most effective way to reduce motor impairments in stroke patients. This multiple systematic review focuses both on standard treatment methods and on innovating rehabilitation techniques used to promote upper extremity motor function in stroke patients. A total number of 5712 publications on stroke rehabilitation was systematically reviewed for relevance and quality with regards to upper extremity motor outcome. This procedure yielded 270 publications corresponding to the inclusion criteria of the systematic review. Recent technology-based interventions in stroke rehabilitation including non-invasive brain stimulation, robot-assisted training, and virtual reality immersion are addressed. Finally, a decisional tree based on evidence from the literature and characteristics of stroke patients is proposed. At present, the stroke rehabilitation field faces the challenge to tailor evidence-based treatment strategies to the needs of the individual stroke patient. Interventions can be combined in order to achieve the maximal motor function recovery for each patient. Though the efficacy of some interventions may be under debate, motor skill learning, and some new technological approaches give promising outcome prognosis in stroke motor rehabilitation.

Moving Forward by Stimulating the Brain: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Post-Stroke Hemiparesis

Stroke remains a leading cause of disability worldwide, with a majority of survivors experiencing long term decrements in motor function that severely undermine quality of life. While many treatment approaches and adjunctive strategies exist to remediate motor impairment, many are only efficacious or feasible for survivors with active hand and wrist function, a population who constitute only a minority of stroke survivors. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a type of non-invasive brain stimulation, has been increasingly utilized to increase motor function following stroke as it is able to be used with stroke survivors of varying impairment levels, is portable, is relatively inexpensive and has few side effects and contraindications. Accordingly, in recent years the number of studies investigating its efficacy when utilized as an adjunct to motor rehabilitation regimens has drastically increased. While many of these trials have reported positive and promising efficacy, methodologies vary greatly between studies, including differences in stimulation parameters, outcome measures and the nature of physical practice. As such, an urgent need remains, centering on the need to investigate these methodological differences and synthesize the most current evidence surrounding the application of tDCS for post-stroke motor rehabilitation. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed overview of the most recent tDCS literature (published 2014-2015), while highlighting these variations in methodological approach, as well to elucidate the mechanisms associated with tDCS and post-stroke motor re-learning and neuroplasticity.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADLs) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, but a possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve ADL performance, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tDCS on ADLs, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to February 2015), EMBASE (1980 to February 2015), CINAHL (1982 to February 2015), AMED (1985 to February 2015), Science Citation Index (1899 to February 2015) and four additional databases. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADLs and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADLs, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias (JM and MP) and extracted data (BE and JM). If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies involving a total of 748 participants aged above 18 with acute, postacute or chronic ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. We also identified 55 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes.We found nine studies with 396 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADLs after stroke. We found evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.44; inverse variance method with random-effects model; moderate quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADLs at the end of follow-up, and found improved ADL performance (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; inverse variance method with random-effects model; moderate quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis including only trials of good methodological quality.One of our secondary outcome measures was upper extremity function: 12 trials with a total of 431 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period, revealing no evidence of an effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50 for studies presenting absolute values (low quality evidence) and SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.51 to 1.15 (low quality evidence) for studies presenting change values; inverse variance method with random-effects model). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified four studies with a total of 187 participants (absolute values) that showed no evidence of an effect (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50; inverse variance method with random-effects model; low quality evidence). Ten studies with 313 participants reported outcome data for muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but in the corresponding meta-analysis there was no evidence of an effect. Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect.In six of 23 studies (26%), dropouts, adverse events or deaths that occurred during the intervention period were reported, and the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; low quality evidence; analysis based only on studies that reported either on dropouts, or on adverse events, or on both). However, this effect may be underestimated due to reporting bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment, evidence of very low to moderate quality is available on the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal/cathodal/dual) versus control (sham/any other intervention) for improving ADL performance after stroke. However, there are many ongoing randomised trials that could change the quality of evidence in the future. Future studies should particularly engage those who may benefit most from tDCS after stroke and in the effects of tDCS on upper and lower limb function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect). Dropouts and adverse events should be routinely monitored and presented as secondary outcomes. They should also address methodological issues by adhering to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

Stroke Treatment Associated with Rehabilitation Therapy and Transcranial DC Stimulation (START-tDCS): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Traditional treatment for motor impairment after stroke includes medication and physical rehabilitation. The transcranial direct current stimulation associated with a standard physical therapy program may be an effective therapeutic alternative for these patients.

Methods

This study is a sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial aiming to evaluate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in activities of daily living and motor function post subacute stroke. In total there will be 40 patients enrolled, diagnosed with subacute, ischemic, unilateral, non-recurring stroke. Participants will be randomized to two groups, one with active stimulation and the other with a placebo current. Patients and investigators will be blinded. Everyone will receive systematic physical therapy, based on constraint-induced movement therapy. The intervention will be applied for 10 consecutive days. Patients will undergo three functional assessments: at baseline, week 2, and week 4. Neuropsychological tests will be performed at baseline and week 4. Adverse effects will be computed at each session. On completion of the baseline measures, randomization will be conducted using random permuted blocks. The randomization will be concealed until group allocation.

Discussion

This study will investigate the combined effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and physical therapy on functional improvement after stroke. We tested whether the combination of these treatments is more effective than physical therapy alone when administered in the early stages after stroke.

Trial registration

NCT02156635 - May 30, 2014. Randomization is ongoing (40 participants randomized as of the end of December 2015).

Non-invasive brain stimulation: an interventional tool for enhancing behavioral training after stroke

Stroke is the leading cause of disability among adults. Motor deficit is the most common impairment after stroke. Especially, deficits in fine motor skills impair numerous activities of daily life. Re-acquisition of motor skills resulting in improved or more accurate motor performance is paramount to regain function, and is the basis of behavioral motor therapy after stroke. Within the past years, there has been a rapid technological and methodological development in neuroimaging leading to a significant progress in the understanding of the neural substrates that underlie motor skill acquisition and functional recovery in stroke patients. Based on this and the development of novel non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, new adjuvant interventional approaches that augment the response to behavioral training have been proposed. Transcranial direct current, transcranial magnetic, and paired associative (PAS) stimulation are NIBS techniques that can modulate cortical excitability, neuronal plasticity and interact with learning and memory in both healthy individuals and stroke patients. These techniques can enhance the effect of practice and facilitate the retention of tasks that mimic daily life activities. The purpose of the present review is to provide a comprehensive overview of neuroplastic phenomena in the motor system during learning of a motor skill, recovery after brain injury, and of interventional strategies to enhance the beneficial effects of customarily used neurorehabilitation after stroke.

Cellular and molecular mechanisms of action of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence from in vitro and in vivo models

Transcranial direct current stimulation is a noninvasive technique that has been experimentally tested for a number of psychiatric and neurological conditions. Preliminary observations suggest that this approach can indeed influence a number of cellular and molecular pathways that may be disease relevant. However, the mechanisms of action underlying its beneficial effects are largely unknown and need to be better understood to allow this therapy to be used optimally. In this review, we summarize the physiological responses observed in vitro and in vivo, with a particular emphasis on cellular and molecular cascades associated with inflammation, angiogenesis, neurogenesis, and neuroplasticity recruited by direct current stimulation, a topic that has been largely neglected in the literature. A better understanding of the neural responses to transcranial direct current stimulation is critical if this therapy is to be used in large-scale clinical trials with a view of being routinely offered to patients suffering from various conditions affecting the central nervous system.