Cargando…

Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials

The common aim of transcranial stimulation methods is the induction or alterations of cortical excitability in a controlled way. Significant effects of each individual stimulation method have been published; however, conclusive direct comparisons of many of these methods are rare. The aim of the pre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moliadze, Vera, Fritzsche, Georg, Antal, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24804104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/837141
_version_ 1782313145889456128
author Moliadze, Vera
Fritzsche, Georg
Antal, Andrea
author_facet Moliadze, Vera
Fritzsche, Georg
Antal, Andrea
author_sort Moliadze, Vera
collection PubMed
description The common aim of transcranial stimulation methods is the induction or alterations of cortical excitability in a controlled way. Significant effects of each individual stimulation method have been published; however, conclusive direct comparisons of many of these methods are rare. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of three widely applied stimulation methods inducing excitability enhancement in the motor cortex: 1 mA anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), and 1 mA transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) within one subject group. The effect of each stimulation condition was quantified by evaluating motor-evoked-potential amplitudes (MEPs) in a fixed time sequence after stimulation. The analyses confirmed a significant enhancement of the M1 excitability caused by all three types of active stimulations compared to sham stimulation. There was no significant difference between the types of active stimulations, although the time course of the excitatory effects slightly differed. Among the stimulation methods, tRNS resulted in the strongest and atDCS significantly longest MEP increase compared to sham. Different time courses of the applied stimulation methods suggest different underlying mechanisms of action. Better understanding may be useful for better targeting of different transcranial stimulation techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3997131
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39971312014-05-06 Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials Moliadze, Vera Fritzsche, Georg Antal, Andrea Neural Plast Research Article The common aim of transcranial stimulation methods is the induction or alterations of cortical excitability in a controlled way. Significant effects of each individual stimulation method have been published; however, conclusive direct comparisons of many of these methods are rare. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of three widely applied stimulation methods inducing excitability enhancement in the motor cortex: 1 mA anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), and 1 mA transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) within one subject group. The effect of each stimulation condition was quantified by evaluating motor-evoked-potential amplitudes (MEPs) in a fixed time sequence after stimulation. The analyses confirmed a significant enhancement of the M1 excitability caused by all three types of active stimulations compared to sham stimulation. There was no significant difference between the types of active stimulations, although the time course of the excitatory effects slightly differed. Among the stimulation methods, tRNS resulted in the strongest and atDCS significantly longest MEP increase compared to sham. Different time courses of the applied stimulation methods suggest different underlying mechanisms of action. Better understanding may be useful for better targeting of different transcranial stimulation techniques. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3997131/ /pubmed/24804104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/837141 Text en Copyright © 2014 Vera Moliadze et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moliadze, Vera
Fritzsche, Georg
Antal, Andrea
Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials
title Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials
title_full Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials
title_fullStr Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials
title_short Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials
title_sort comparing the efficacy of excitatory transcranial stimulation methods measuring motor evoked potentials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24804104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/837141
work_keys_str_mv AT moliadzevera comparingtheefficacyofexcitatorytranscranialstimulationmethodsmeasuringmotorevokedpotentials
AT fritzschegeorg comparingtheefficacyofexcitatorytranscranialstimulationmethodsmeasuringmotorevokedpotentials
AT antalandrea comparingtheefficacyofexcitatorytranscranialstimulationmethodsmeasuringmotorevokedpotentials