Article

Time course of the induction of homeostatic plasticity generated by repeated transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex

Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College of London, London, United Kingdom.
Journal of Neurophysiology (Impact Factor: 3.04). 12/2010; 105(3):1141-9. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00608.2009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several mechanisms have been proposed that control the amount of plasticity in neuronal circuits and guarantee dynamic stability of neuronal networks. Homeostatic plasticity suggests that the ease with which a synaptic connection is facilitated/suppressed depends on the previous amount of network activity. We describe how such homeostatic-like interactions depend on the time interval between two conditioning protocols and on the duration of the preconditioning protocol. We used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to produce short-lasting plasticity in the motor cortex of healthy humans. In the main experiment, we compared the aftereffect of a single 5-min session of anodal or cathodal tDCS with the effect of a 5-min tDCS session preceded by an identical 5-min conditioning session administered 30, 3, or 0 min beforehand. Five-minute anodal tDCS increases excitability for about 5 min. The same duration of cathodal tDCS reduces excitability. Increasing the duration of tDCS to 10 min prolongs the duration of the effects. If two 5-min periods of tDCS are applied with a 30-min break between them, the effect of the second period of tDCS is identical to that of 5-min stimulation alone. If the break is only 3 min, then the second session has the opposite effect to 5-min tDCS given alone. Control experiments show that these shifts in the direction of plasticity evolve during the 10 min after the first tDCS session and depend on the duration of the first tDCS but not on intracortical inhibition and facilitation. The results are compatible with a time-dependent "homeostatic-like" rule governing the response of the human motor cortex to plasticity probing protocols.

1 Follower
 · 
84 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Integration of information between multiple cortical regions of the pain neuromatrix is thought to underpin pain modulation. Although altered processing in the primary motor (M1) and sensory (S1) cortices is implicated in separate studies, the simultaneous changes in and the relationship between these regions are unknown yet. The primary aim was to assess the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over superficial regions of the pain neuromatrix on M1 and S1 excitability. The secondary aim was to investigate how M1 and S1 excitability changes affect sensory (STh) and pain thresholds (PTh). Twelve healthy participants received 20 min a-tDCS under five different conditions including a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCS of S1, a-tDCS of DLPFC, sham a-tDCS, and no-tDCS. Excitability of dominant M1 and S1 were measured before, immediately, and 30 minutes after intervention respectively. Moreover, STh and PTh to peripheral electrical and mechanical stimulation were evaluated. All outcome measures were assessed at three time-points of measurement by a blind rater. A-tDCS of M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) significantly increased brain excitability in M1 (p < 0.05) for at least 30 min. Following application of a-tDCS over the S1, the amplitude of the N20-P25 component of SEPs increased immediately after the stimulation (p < 0.05), whilst M1 stimulation decreased it. Compared to baseline values, significant STh and PTh increase was observed after a-tDCS of all three stimulated areas. Except in M1 stimulation, there was significant PTh difference between a-tDCS and sham tDCS. Discussion: a-tDCS of M1 is the best spots to enhance brain excitability than a-tDCS of S1 and DLPFC. Surprisingly, a-tDCS of M1 and S1 has diverse effects on S1 and M1 excitability. A-tDCS of M1, S1, and DLPFC increased STh and PTh levels. Given the placebo effects of a-tDCS of M1 in pain perception, our results should be interpreted with caution, particularly with respect to the behavioural aspects of pain modulation.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(3). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118340 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Attention is a complex construct that comprises at least three major subcomponents: alerting, spatial (re-)orienting, and executive functions, all of which have specific neural correlates along frontoparietal networks. Attention deficits are a common consequence of brain damage. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to modulate spatial attention. We investigated whether tDCS of different stimulation targets differentially modulates alerting, spatial (re-)orienting, and executive functions. Twenty-four healthy participants were included in this randomized, double-blinded study, which employed a within-subject design. On four different days, the effects of 1.5mA anodal tDCS (real and sham) on the left dorsolateral (EEG 10-20 point F3), left parietal (P3) and right parietal cortex (P4) were assessed using a modified attention network test. tDCS of the right parietal cortex enhanced spatial re-orienting, while tDCS of the other cortical targets did not modulate the assessed attention functions. With regard to visual field asymmetries in attentional processing, right parietal tDCS selectively enhanced mean network efficiency for targets presented in the contralateral left visual field. The observed visual field specific tDCS effects on reorienting suggest that systematic investigations into novel approaches for the treatment of patients suffering from spatial neglect patients are warranted. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Neuropsychologia 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.028 · 3.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been proposed to play an important role in neural processes that underlie multitasking performance. However, this claim is underexplored in terms of direct causal evidence.
    Cortex 05/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.014 · 6.04 Impact Factor