Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on cortex modulation by stimulation of the primary motor cortex and parietal cortex in humans

References

• Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol-London. 2000;527(3):633–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001;57(10):1899–1901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA. Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist. 2011;17(1):37–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappon D, Jahanshahi M, Bisiacchi P. Value and efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in the cognitive rehabilitation: a critical review since 2000. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods AJ, Antal A, Bikson M, et al. A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1031–1048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on cognition. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2012;43(3):192–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flöel A. tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases. Neuroimage. 2014;85:934–947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo M-F, Paulus W, Nitsche MA. Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases. Neuroimage. 2014;85:948–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bikson M, Grossman P, Thomas C, et al. Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 2016;9(5):641–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonenko D, Faxel M, Grittner U, et al. Effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation on cognitive functions in healthy young and older adults. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moliadze V, Fritzsche G, Antal A. Comparing the efficacy of excitatory transcranial stimulation methods measuring motor evoked potentials. Neural Plast. 2014;2014:1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tazoe T, Endoh T, Kitamura T, et al. Polarity specific effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on interhemispheric inhibition. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labruna L, Jamil A, Fresnoza S, et al. Efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation is related to sensitivity to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2016;9(1):8–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvador R, Mekonnen A, Ruffini G, et al. Modeling the electric field induced in a high resolution realistic head model during transcranial current stimulation. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE; 2010. p. 2073–2076.
   Google Scholar
• Vaseghi B, Zoghi M, Jaberzadeh S. Differential effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal, motor and somatosensory cortices on cortical excitability and pain perception–a double‐blind randomised sham‐controlled study. Eur J Neurosci. 2015;42(7):2426–2437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Río-Rodríguez D, et al. Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(3):372–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiethoff S, Hamada M, Rothwell JC. Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. Brain Stimul. 2014;7(3):468–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Alonso V, Fernández-del-Olmo M, Costantini A, et al. Intra-individual variability in the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(12):2342–2347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U, et al. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol (Lond). 2003;553(Pt 1):293–301.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu T-Y, Juan C-H, Tseng P. Individual differences and state-dependent responses in transcranial direct current stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonstra TW, Nikolin S, Meisener A-C, et al. Change in mean frequency of resting-state electroencephalography after transcranial direct current stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley CJ, Singh KD, McGonigle DJ. Transcranial modulation of brain oscillatory responses: A concurrent tDCS-MEG investigation. Neuroimage. 2016;140:20–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay S, Beaulé V, Lepage J-F, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation modulates GABAB-related intracortical inhibition in the M1 of healthy individuals. Neuroreport. 2013;24(1):46–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horvath JC, Forte JD, Carter O. Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: a systematic review. Neuropsychologia. 2015;66:213–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuzum ND, Hendy AM, Russell AP, et al. Measures to predict the individual variability of corticospinal responses following transcranial direct current stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minarik T, Berger B, Althaus L, et al. The importance of sample size for reproducibility of tDCS effects. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inukai Y, Saito K, Sasaki R, et al. Influence of transcranial direct current stimulation to the cerebellum on standing posture control. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9(1):97–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bashir S, Ahmad S, Alatefi M, et al. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on motor evoked potentials variability in humans. Physiol Rep. 2019;7(13):e14087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bashir S, Yoo WK, Kim HS, et al. The number of pulses needed to measure corticospinal excitability by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation: Eyes open vs. close condition. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernet M, Bashir S, Yoo WK, et al. Reproducibility of the effects of theta burst stimulation on motor cortical plasticity in healthy participants. Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125(2):320–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi M, Hallett PM, Rossini A, et al. , Safety of TMS Consensus Group. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(12):2008–2039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guggisberg AG, Dubach P, Hess CW, et al. Motor evoked potentials from masseter muscle induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the pyramidal tract: the importance of coil orientation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112(12):2312–2319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julkunen P, Säisänen L, Danner N, et al. Comparison of navigated and non-navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor cortex mapping, motor threshold and motor evoked potentials. Neuroimage. 2009;44(3):790–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datta A, Bansal V, Diaz J, et al. Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: Improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimul. 2009;2(4):201–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo H-I, Bikson M, Datta A, et al. Comparing cortical plasticity induced by conventional and high-definition 4 × 1 ring tDCS: a neurophysiological study. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(4):644–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alghamdi F, Alhussien A, Alohali M, et al. Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on the number of smoked cigarettes in tobacco smokers. PloS One. 2019;14(2):e0212312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creutzfeldt OD, Fromm GH, Kapp H. Influence of transcortical d-c currents on cortical neuronal activity. Exp. Neurol. 1962;5(6):436–452. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(62)90056-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purpura DP, McMurtry JG. Intracellular activities and evoked potential changes during polarization of motor cortex. J Neurophysiol. 1965;28:166–185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1965.28.1.166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amadi U, Ilie A, Johansen-Berg H, et al. Polarity-specific effects of motor transcranial direct current stimulation on fMRI resting state networks. Neuroimage. 2014;88:155–161. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Lazzaro V, Manganelli F, Dileone M, et al. The effects of prolonged cathodal direct current stimulation on the excitatory and inhibitory circuits of the ipsilateral and contralateral motor cortex. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2012;119(12):1499–1506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch G, Fernandez del Olmo M, Cheeran B, et al. Focal stimulation of the posterior parietal cortex increases the excitability of the ipsilateral motor cortex. J Neurosci. 2007;27(25):6815–6822. doi:https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0118-07.2007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch G, Fernandez del Olmo M, Cheeran B, et al. Functional interplay between posterior parietal and ipsilateral motor cortex revealed by twin-coil transcranial magnetic stimulation during reach planning toward contralateral space. J Neurosci. 2008;28(23):5944–5953. doi:https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0957-08.2008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch G, Ruge D, Cheeran B, et al. TMS activation of interhemispheric pathways between the posterior parietal cortex and the contralateral motor cortex. J Physiol (Lond). 2009;587(Pt 17):4281–4292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.
   Google Scholar
• Pellicciari MC, Brignani D, Miniussi C. Excitability modulation of the motor system induced by transcranial direct current stimulation: a multimodal approach. Neuroimage. 2013;83:569–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera-Urbina GN, Batsikadze G, Molero-Chamizo A, et al. Parietal transcranial direct current stimulation modulates primary motor cortex excitability. Eur J Neurosci. 2015;41(6):845–855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marom B, Walter P, Zeinab E, et al. Mechanisms of acute and after effects of transcranial direct current stimulation. In Practical Guide to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; 2019. p. 81–113. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95948-1
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki K, Fujiwara T, Tanaka N, et al. Comparison of the after-effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex in patients with stroke and healthy volunteers. Int J Neurosci. 2012;122(11):675–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasil-Neto JP, Cohen LG, Panizza M, et al. Optimal focal transcranial magnetic activation of the human motor cortex: effects of coil orientation, shape of the induced current pulse, and stimulus intensity. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;9(1):132–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang WH, Fried PJ, Saxena S, et al. Optimal number of pulses as outcome measures of neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(8):2892–2897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitcher JB, Ogston KM, Miles TS. Age and sex differences in human motor cortex input-output characteristics. J Physiol (Lond). 2003;546(Pt 2):605–613.
   Google Scholar
• Cuypers K, Thijs H, Meesen RL. Optimization of the transcranial magnetic stimulation protocol by defining a reliable estimate for corticospinal excitability. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magistris MR, Rösler KM, Truffert A, et al. A clinical study of motor evoked potentials using a triple stimulation technique. Brain. 1999;122(2):265–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar