Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery.

In patients with chronic stroke, the primary motor cortex of the intact hemisphere (M1(intact hemisphere)) may influence functional recovery, possibly through transcallosal effects exerted over M1 in the lesioned hemisphere (M1(lesioned hemisphere)). Here, we studied interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) between M1(intact hemisphere) and M1(lesioned hemisphere) in the process of generation of a voluntary movement by the paretic hand in patients with chronic subcortical stroke and in healthy volunteers. IHI was evaluated in both hands preceding the onset of unilateral voluntary index finger movements (paretic hand in patients, right hand in controls) in a simple reaction time paradigm. IHI at rest and shortly after the Go signal were comparable in patients and controls. Closer to movement onset, IHI targeting the moving index finger turned into facilitation in controls but remained deep in patients, a finding that correlated with poor motor performance. These results document an abnormally high interhemispheric inhibitory drive from M1(intact hemisphere) to M1(lesioned hemisphere) in the process of generation of a voluntary movement by the paretic hand. It is conceivable that this abnormality could adversely influence motor recovery in some patients with subcortical stroke, an interpretation consistent with models of interhemispheric competition in motor and sensory systems.

Previous studies have claimed that weak transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induces persisting excitability changes in the human motor cortex that can be more pronounced than cortical modulation induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation, but there are no studies that have evaluated the effects of tDCS on working memory. Our aim was to determine whether anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, which enhances brain cortical excitability and activity, would modify performance in a sequential-letter working memory task when administered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Fifteen subjects underwent a three-back working memory task based on letters. This task was performed during sham and anodal stimulation applied over the left DLPFC. Moreover seven of these subjects performed the same task, but with inverse polarity (cathodal stimulation of the left DLPFC) and anodal stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1). Our results indicate that only anodal stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex, but not cathodal stimulation of left DLPFC or anodal stimulation of M1, increases the accuracy of the task performance when compared to sham stimulation of the same area. This accuracy enhancement during active stimulation cannot be accounted for by slowed responses, as response times were not changed by stimulation. Our results indicate that left prefrontal anodal stimulation leads to an enhancement of working memory performance. Furthermore, this effect depends on the stimulation polarity and is specific to the site of stimulation. This result may be helpful to develop future interventions aiming at clinical benefits.