Motor Sequence Learning in Healthy Older Adults Is Not Necessarily Facilitated by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

Optimizing the Effect of tDCS on Motor Sequence Learning in the Elderly

One of the most visible effects of aging, even in healthy, normal aging, is a decline in motor performance. The range of strategies applicable to counteract this deterioration has increased. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that can promote neuroplasticity, has recently gained attention. However, knowledge about optimized tDCS parameters in the elderly is limited. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the effect of different anodal tDCS intensities on motor sequence learning in the elderly. Over the course of four sessions, 25 healthy older adults (over 65 years old) completed the Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) while receiving 1, 2, or 3 mA of anodal or sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1). Additionally, 24 h after stimulation, motor memory consolidation was assessed. The results confirmed that motor sequence learning in all tDCS conditions was maintained the following day. While increased anodal stimulation intensity over M1 showed longer lasting excitability enhancement in the elderly in a prior study, the combination of higher intensity stimulation with an implicit motor learning task showed no significant effect. Future research should focus on the reason behind this lack of effect and probe alternative stimulation protocols.

Anodal tDCS does not enhance the learning of the sequential finger-tapping task by motor imagery practice in healthy older adults

Background

Motor imagery practice (MIP) and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) are innovative methods with independent positive influence on motor sequence learning (MSL) in older adults.

Objective

The present study investigated the effect of MIP combined with a-tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) on the learning of a finger tapping sequence of the non-dominant hand in healthy older adults.

Methods

Thirty participants participated in this double-blind sham-controlled study. They performed three MIP sessions, one session per day over three consecutive days and a retention test 1 week after the last training session. During training / MIP, participants had to mentally rehearse an 8-element finger tapping sequence with their left hand, concomitantly to either real (a-tDCS group) or sham stimulation (sham-tDCS group). Before and after MIP, as well as during the retention test, participants had to physically perform the same sequence as fast and accurately as possible.

Results

Our main results showed that both groups (i) improved their performance during the first two training sessions, reflecting acquisition/on-line performance gains, (ii) stabilized their performance from one training day to another, reflecting off-line consolidation; as well as after 7 days without practice, reflecting retention, (iii) for all stages of MSL, there was no significant difference between the sham-tDCS and a-tDCS groups.

Conclusion

This study highlights the usefulness of MIP in motor sequence learning for older adults. However, 1.5 mA a-tDCS did not enhance the beneficial effects of MIP, which adds to the inconsistency of results found in tDCS studies. Future work is needed to further explore the best conditions of use of tDCS to improve motor sequence learning with MIP.

A meta-analytical review of transcranial direct current stimulation parameters on upper limb motor learning in healthy older adults and people with Parkinson's disease

Current literature lacks consolidated evidence for the impact of stimulation parameters on the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in enhancing upper limb motor learning. Hence, we aim to synthesise available methodologies and results to guide future research on the usage of tDCS on upper limb motor learning, specifically in older adults and Parkinson's disease (PD). Thirty-two studies (Healthy older adults, N = 526, M = 67.25, SD = 4.30 years; PD, N = 216, M = 66.62, SD = 6.25 years) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies consisted of active and sham protocols. Random effect meta-analyses were conducted for (i) subjects (healthy older adults and PD); (ii) intensity (1.0, 1.5, 2 mA); (iii) electrode montage (unilateral anodal, bilateral anodal, unilateral cathodal); (iv) stimulation site (cerebellum, frontal, motor, premotor, SMA, somatosensory); (v) protocol (online, offline). Significant tDCS effect on motor learning was reported for both populations, intensity 1.0 and 2.0 mA, unilateral anodal and cathodal stimulation, stimulation site of the motor and premotor cortex, and both online and offline protocols. Regression showed no significant relationship between tDCS effects and density. The efficacy of tDCS is also not affected by the number of sessions. However, studies that reported only single session tDCS found significant negative association between duration with motor learning outcomes. Our findings suggest that different stimulation parameters enhanced upper limb motor learning in older adults and PD. Future research should combine tDCS with neuroimaging techniques to help with optimisation of the stimulation parameters, considering the type of task and population.

Age-related changes in motor cortex plasticity assessed with non-invasive brain stimulation: an update and new perspectives

It is commonly accepted that the brains capacity to change, known as plasticity, declines into old age. Recent studies have used a variety of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques to examine this age-related decline in plasticity in the primary motor cortex (M1), but the effects seem inconsistent and difficult to unravel. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on studies that have used different NIBS techniques to assess M1 plasticity with advancing age and offer some new perspective on NIBS strategies to boost plasticity in the ageing brain. We find that early studies show clear differences in M1 plasticity between young and older adults, but many recent studies with motor training show no decline in use-dependent M1 plasticity with age. For NIBS-induced plasticity in M1, some protocols show more convincing differences with advancing age than others. Therefore, our view from the NIBS literature is that it should not be automatically assumed that M1 plasticity declines with age. Instead, the effects of age are likely to depend on how M1 plasticity is measured, and the characteristics of the elderly population tested. We also suggest that NIBS performed concurrently with motor training is likely to be most effective at producing improvements in M1 plasticity and motor skill learning in older adults. Proposed NIBS techniques for future studies include combining multiple NIBS protocols in a co-stimulation approach, or NIBS strategies to modulate intracortical inhibitory mechanisms, in an effort to more effectively boost M1 plasticity and improve motor skill learning in older adults.

Exploring and optimizing the neuroplastic effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex of older humans

BACKGROUND

tDCS modulates cortical plasticity and has shown potential to improve cognitive/motor functions in healthy young humans. However, age-related alterations of brain structure and functions might require an adaptation of tDCS-parameters to achieve a targeted plasticity effect in older humans and conclusions obtained from young adults might not be directly transferable to older adults. Thus, our study aimed to systematically explore the association between tDCS-parameters and induced aftereffects on motor cortical excitability to determine optimal stimulation protocols for older individuals, as well as to investigate age-related differences of motor cortex plasticity in two different age groups of older adults.

METHODS

32 healthy, volunteers from two different age groups of Young-Old (50-65 years, n = 16) and Old-Old (66-80 years, n = 16) participated in this study. Anodal tDCS was applied over the primary motor cortex, with respective combinations of three intensities (1, 2, and 3 mA) and durations (15, 20, and 30 min), in a sham-controlled cross-over design. Cortical excitability alterations were monitored by single-pulse TMS-induced MEPs until the next day morning after stimulation.

RESULTS

All active stimulation conditions resulted in a significant enhancement of motor cortical excitability in both age groups. The facilitatory aftereffects of anodal tDCS did not significantly differ between age groups. We observed prolonged plasticity in the late-phase range for two protocols with the highest stimulation intensity (i.e., 3 mA-20 min, 3 mA-30 min).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the role of stimulation dosage in tDCS-induced neuroplastic aftereffects in the motor cortex of healthy older adults and delivers crucial information about optimized tDCS protocols in the domain of the primary motor cortex. Our findings might set the grounds for the development of optimal stimulation protocols to reinstate neuroplasticity in different cortical areas and induce long-lasting, functionally relevant plasticity in normal aging and in pathological conditions, which would require however systematic tDCS titration studies over respective target areas.

Differential Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Depending on Previous Musical Training

Previous studies have shown that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) facilitates motor performance, but individual differences such as baseline performance seem to influence this effect. Accordingly, musicians offer an inter-individual differences model due to anatomical and functional variances displayed among the motor cortex regions. The aim of the present work was to study if the baseline motor skill predicts whether tDCS can enhance motor learning. For that objective, we administered anodal (n = 20) or sham (n = 20) tDCS on the right primary motor cortex region of 40 right-handed healthy participants, who were divided into four groups: musicians (tDCS/sham) and non-musicians (tDCS/sham). We measured the skill index (SI) presented in the sequential finger-tapping task (SEQTAP) at baseline, during three 20 min/2 mA stimulation sessions, and in follow-up tests after 20 min and 8 days. Depending on the normality of the data distribution, statistical differences were estimated by ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc test or Kruskal-Wallis and U Mann-Whitney. Results showed that musicians scored higher in baseline performance than non-musicians. The non-musicians who received tDCS scored higher than the sham group in the first and second stimulation session. This effect was extended to the 20 min and 8 days follow-up test. In musicians, there was no effect of tDCS. The present method seems to be suitable for the achievement of positive and consolidated tDCS effects on motor learning in inexperienced participants, but not in musicians. These data may have an implication for the rehabilitation of motor impairments, contributing to more individualized stimulation protocols.

Kinematic measures provide useful information after intracranial aneurysm treatment

INTRODUCTION

Current methods of assessing the outcomes of intracranial aneurysm treatment for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage are relatively insensitive, and thus unlikely to detect subtle deficits. Failures to identify cognitive and motor outcomes of intracranial aneurysm treatment might prevent delivery of optimal post-operative care. There are also concerns over risks associated with using intracranial aneurysm treatment as a preventative measure.

METHODS

We explored whether our kinematic tool would yield useful information regarding motor/cognitive function in patients who underwent intracranial aneurysm treatment for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage or unruptured aneurysm. Computerised kinematic motor and learning tasks were administered alongside standardised clinical outcome measures of cognition and functional ability, in 10 patients, as a pilot trial. Tests at post-intracranial aneurysm treatment discharge and six-week follow-up were compared to see which measures detected changes.

RESULTS

Kinematic tests captured significant improvements from discharge to six-week follow-up, indexed by reduced motor errors and improved learning. Increased Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised scores reflected some recovery of memory function for most individuals, but other standardised cognitive measures, functional outcome scores and a psychological questionnaire showed no changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Kinematic measures can identify variation in performance in individuals with only slightly improved abilities post-intracranial aneurysm treatment. These measures may provide a sensitive way to explore post-operative outcomes following intracranial aneurysm treatment, or other similar surgical procedures.