Cargando…

Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques

Transcranial current stimulation (tCS) techniques have been shown to induce cortical plasticity. As an important relay in the motor system, the cerebellum is an interesting target for plasticity induction using tCS, aiming to modulate its excitability and connectivity. However, until now it remains...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Herzog, Rebecca, Berger, Till M., Pauly, Martje G., Xue, Honghu, Rueckert, Elmar, Münchau, Alexander, Bäumer, Tobias, Weissbach, Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9521312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36188449
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.987472
_version_ 1784799810118746112
author Herzog, Rebecca
Berger, Till M.
Pauly, Martje G.
Xue, Honghu
Rueckert, Elmar
Münchau, Alexander
Bäumer, Tobias
Weissbach, Anne
author_facet Herzog, Rebecca
Berger, Till M.
Pauly, Martje G.
Xue, Honghu
Rueckert, Elmar
Münchau, Alexander
Bäumer, Tobias
Weissbach, Anne
author_sort Herzog, Rebecca
collection PubMed
description Transcranial current stimulation (tCS) techniques have been shown to induce cortical plasticity. As an important relay in the motor system, the cerebellum is an interesting target for plasticity induction using tCS, aiming to modulate its excitability and connectivity. However, until now it remains unclear, which is the most effective tCS method for inducing plasticity in the cerebellum. Thus, in this study, the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), 50 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (50 Hz tACS), and high frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) were compared with sham stimulation in 20 healthy subjects in a within-subject design. tCS was applied targeting the cerebellar lobe VIIIA using neuronavigation. We measured corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), and cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) and performed a sensor-based movement analysis at baseline and three times after the intervention (post1 = 15 min; post2 = 55 min; post3 = 95 min). Corticospinal excitability increased following cerebellar tACS and tRNS compared to sham stimulation. This effect was most pronounced directly after stimulation but lasted for at least 55 min after tACS. Cortico-cortical and cerebello-cortical conditioning protocols, as well as sensor-based movement analyses, did not change. Our findings suggest that cerebellar 50 Hz tACS is the most effective protocol to change corticospinal excitability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9521312
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95213122022-09-30 Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques Herzog, Rebecca Berger, Till M. Pauly, Martje G. Xue, Honghu Rueckert, Elmar Münchau, Alexander Bäumer, Tobias Weissbach, Anne Front Neurosci Neuroscience Transcranial current stimulation (tCS) techniques have been shown to induce cortical plasticity. As an important relay in the motor system, the cerebellum is an interesting target for plasticity induction using tCS, aiming to modulate its excitability and connectivity. However, until now it remains unclear, which is the most effective tCS method for inducing plasticity in the cerebellum. Thus, in this study, the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), 50 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (50 Hz tACS), and high frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) were compared with sham stimulation in 20 healthy subjects in a within-subject design. tCS was applied targeting the cerebellar lobe VIIIA using neuronavigation. We measured corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), and cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) and performed a sensor-based movement analysis at baseline and three times after the intervention (post1 = 15 min; post2 = 55 min; post3 = 95 min). Corticospinal excitability increased following cerebellar tACS and tRNS compared to sham stimulation. This effect was most pronounced directly after stimulation but lasted for at least 55 min after tACS. Cortico-cortical and cerebello-cortical conditioning protocols, as well as sensor-based movement analyses, did not change. Our findings suggest that cerebellar 50 Hz tACS is the most effective protocol to change corticospinal excitability. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9521312/ /pubmed/36188449 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.987472 Text en Copyright © 2022 Herzog, Berger, Pauly, Xue, Rueckert, Münchau, Bäumer and Weissbach. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Herzog, Rebecca
Berger, Till M.
Pauly, Martje G.
Xue, Honghu
Rueckert, Elmar
Münchau, Alexander
Bäumer, Tobias
Weissbach, Anne
Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques
title Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques
title_full Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques
title_fullStr Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques
title_full_unstemmed Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques
title_short Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques
title_sort cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – an intraindividual comparison of different techniques
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9521312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36188449
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.987472
work_keys_str_mv AT herzogrebecca cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT bergertillm cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT paulymartjeg cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT xuehonghu cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT rueckertelmar cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT munchaualexander cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT baumertobias cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques
AT weissbachanne cerebellartranscranialcurrentstimulationanintraindividualcomparisonofdifferenttechniques