79
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Therapies for motor recovery after stroke or traumatic brain injury are still not satisfactory. To date the best approach seems to be the intensive physical therapy. However the results are limited and functional gains are often minimal. The goal of motor training is to minimize functional disability and optimize functional motor recovery. This is thought to be achieved by modulation of plastic changes in the brain. Therefore, adjunct interventions that can augment the response of the motor system to the behavioural training might be useful to enhance the therapy-induced recovery in neurological populations. In this context, noninvasive brain stimulation appears to be an interesting option as an add-on intervention to standard physical therapies. Two non-invasive methods of inducing electrical currents into the brain have proved to be promising for inducing long-lasting plastic changes in motor systems: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). These techniques represent powerful methods for priming cortical excitability for a subsequent motor task, demand, or stimulation. Thus, their mutual use can optimize the plastic changes induced by motor practice, leading to more remarkable and outlasting clinical gains in rehabilitation. In this review we discuss how these techniques can enhance the effects of a behavioural intervention and the clinical evidence to date.

          Related collections

          Most cited references114

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke.

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex.

            We applied trains of focal, rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the motor cortex of 14 healthy volunteers with recording of the EMG from the contralateral abductor pollicis brevis, extensor carpi radialis, biceps brachii and deltoid muscles. Modulation of the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) produced in the target muscle during rTMS showed a pattern of inhibitory and excitatory effects which depended on the rTMS frequency and intensity. With the magnetic coil situated over the optimal scalp position for activating the abductor pollicis brevis, rTMS led to spread of excitation, as evident from the induction of progressively larger MEPs in the other muscles. The number of pulses inducing this spread of excitation decreased with increasing rTMS frequency and intensity. Latency of the MEPs produced in the other muscles during the spread of excitation was significantly longer than that produced by single-pulse TMS applied to the optimal scalp positions for their activation. The difference in MEP latency could be explained by a delay in intracortical conduction along myelinated cortico-cortical pathways. Following rTMS, a 3-4 min period of increased excitability was demonstrated by an increase in the amplitude of MEPs produced in the target muscles by single-pulse TMS. Nevertheless, repeated rTMS trains applied 1 min apart led to similar modulation of the responses and to spread of excitation after approximately the same number of pulses. This suggests that the spread might be due to the breakdown of inhibitory connections or the recruitment of excitatory pathways, whereas the post-stimulation facilitation may be due to a transient increase in the efficacy of excitatory synapses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Exercise and brain neurotrophins.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Neuroeng Rehabil
                Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
                BioMed Central
                1743-0003
                2009
                17 March 2009
                : 6
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
                [2 ]Department of Psychology, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
                [3 ]Institut Guttmann de Neurorehabilitacio, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                Article
                1743-0003-6-8
                10.1186/1743-0003-6-8
                2667408
                19292910
                feba1b11-8b0e-46b5-b735-a4abaac0b4ff
                Copyright © 2009 Bolognini et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 November 2008
                : 17 March 2009
                Categories
                Review

                Neurosciences
                Neurosciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article