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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |