Article

Combining Visual Rehabilitative Training and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation to Enhance Visual Function in Patients With Hemianopia: A Comparative Case Study

Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
PM&R (Impact Factor: 1.66). 09/2011; 3(9):825-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.05.026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To standardize a protocol for promoting visual rehabilitative outcomes in post-stroke hemianopia by combining occipital cortical transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with Vision Restoration Therapy (VRT).
A comparative case study assessing feasibility and safety.
A controlled laboratory setting.
Two patients, both with right hemianopia after occipital stroke damage. METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Both patients underwent an identical VRT protocol that lasted 3 months (30 minutes, twice a day, 3 days per week). In patient 1, anodal tDCS was delivered to the occipital cortex during VRT training, whereas in patient 2 sham tDCS with VRT was performed. The primary outcome, visual field border, was defined objectively by using high-resolution perimetry. Secondary outcomes included subjective characterization of visual deficit and functional surveys that assessed performance on activities of daily living. For patient 1, the neural correlates of visual recovery were also investigated, by using functional magnetic resonance imaging.
Delivery of combined tDCS with VRT was feasible and safe. High-resolution perimetry revealed a greater shift in visual field border for patient 1 versus patient 2. Patient 1 also showed greater recovery of function in activities of daily living. Contrary to the expectation, patient 2 perceived greater subjective improvement in visual field despite objective high-resolution perimetry results that indicated otherwise. In patient 1, visual function recovery was associated with functional magnetic resonance imaging activity in surviving peri-lesional and bilateral higher-order visual areas.
Results of preliminary case comparisons suggest that occipital cortical tDCS may enhance recovery of visual function associated with concurrent VRT through visual cortical reorganization. Future studies may benefit from incorporating protocol refinements such as those described here, which include global capture of function, control for potential confounds, and investigation of underlying neural substrates of recovery.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Dec 19, 2013
1 Follower
 · 
127 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent research suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can affect visual processing and that it can be useful in visual rehabilitation. Nevertheless, there are still few investigations on the subject. tDCS selectivity and the extent of its outcomes on visual perception are still to be assessed. Here, we investigate whether central and peripheral visual fields are equally affected by tDCS. We also tried to reproduce a previous work that has evaluated tDCS effects on the central visual field only (Kraft et al. 207:283–290, 2010). Fifteen healthy subjects participated in this randomized repeated-measure design study and received 1.5-mA anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation in different sessions, while performing 10-2 and 60-4 protocols in an automated perimeter. Anodal tDCS significantly decreased thresholds, but was limited to the most eccentric regions of the visual field measured (60°). This suggests that tDCS might be used for rehabilitation of peripheral visual field losses. We did not replicate the excitatory tDCS effect in the central visual field as previously reported by another group. Instead, we observed a trend toward an inhibitory (yet not statistically significant) effect of anodal tDCS on the central field. This might be explained by methodological differences. These results highlight that although tDCS is a technique with a low focality in the spatial domain, its effects might be highly focal in a functional domain. When taken together with previous findings, this also suggests that tDCS may have a differential effect on different retinotopic areas in the brain.
    Experimental Brain Research 02/2015; 233(5). DOI:10.1007/s00221-015-4213-0 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have previously reported that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) delivered to the occipital cortex enhances visual functional recovery when combined with three months of computer-based rehabilitative training in patients with hemianopia. The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the temporal sequence of effects of tDCS on visual recovery as they appear over the course of training and across different indicators of visual function. Primary objective outcome measures were 1) shifts in visual field border and 2) stimulus detection accuracy within the affected hemifield. These were compared between patients randomized to either vision restoration therapy (VRT) combined with active tDCS or VRT paired with sham tDCS. Training comprised two half-hour sessions, three times a week for three months. Primary outcome measures were collected at baseline (pretest), monthly interim intervals, and at posttest (three months). As secondary outcome measures, contrast sensitivity and reading performance were collected at pretest and posttest time points only. Active tDCS combined with VRT accelerated the recovery of stimulus detection as between-group differences appeared within the first month of training. In contrast, a shift in the visual field border was only evident at posttest (after three months of training). tDCS did not affect contrast sensitivity or reading performance. These results suggest that tDCS may differentially affect the magnitude and sequence of visual recovery in a manner that is task specific to the type of visual rehabilitative training strategy employed.
    Neuromodulation 02/2012; 15(4):367-73. DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00440.x · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Albrecht von Graæes Archiv für Ophthalmologie 06/2012; 251(3). DOI:10.1007/s00417-012-2084-7 · 2.33 Impact Factor