传统经颅直流电刺激设备和电极尺寸对股四头肌运动皮层兴奋性的影响。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Adam Z Gardi, Amanda K Vogel, Aastha K Dharia, Chandramouli Krishnan
{"title":"传统经颅直流电刺激设备和电极尺寸对股四头肌运动皮层兴奋性的影响。","authors":"Adam Z Gardi, Amanda K Vogel, Aastha K Dharia, Chandramouli Krishnan","doi":"10.3233/RNN-211210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a growing concern among the scientific community that the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are highly variable across studies. The use of different tDCS devices and electrode sizes may contribute to this variability; however, this issue has not been verified experimentally.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effects of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effect of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability was quantified across a range of TMS intensities using a novel evoked torque approach that has been previously shown to be highly reliable. In experiment 1, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in twenty individuals using two devices (Empi and Soterix) on two separate days. In experiment 2, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in thirty individuals divided into three groups based on the electrode size. A novel Bayesian approach was used in addition to the classical hypothesis testing during data analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant main or interaction effects, indicating that cortical excitability did not differ between different tDCS devices or electrode sizes. The lack of pre-post time effect in both experiments indicated that cortical excitability was minimally affected by anodal tDCS. Bayesian analyses indicated that the null model was more favored than the main or the interaction effects model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Motor cortical excitability was not altered by anodal tDCS and did not differ by devices or electrode sizes used in the study. Future studies should examine if behavioral outcomes are different based on tDCS device or electrode size.</p>","PeriodicalId":21130,"journal":{"name":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","volume":"39 5","pages":"379-391"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926458/pdf/nihms-1783830.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of conventional transcranial direct current stimulation devices and electrode sizes on motor cortical excitability of the quadriceps muscle.\",\"authors\":\"Adam Z Gardi, Amanda K Vogel, Aastha K Dharia, Chandramouli Krishnan\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/RNN-211210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a growing concern among the scientific community that the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are highly variable across studies. The use of different tDCS devices and electrode sizes may contribute to this variability; however, this issue has not been verified experimentally.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effects of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The effect of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability was quantified across a range of TMS intensities using a novel evoked torque approach that has been previously shown to be highly reliable. In experiment 1, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in twenty individuals using two devices (Empi and Soterix) on two separate days. In experiment 2, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in thirty individuals divided into three groups based on the electrode size. A novel Bayesian approach was used in addition to the classical hypothesis testing during data analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant main or interaction effects, indicating that cortical excitability did not differ between different tDCS devices or electrode sizes. The lack of pre-post time effect in both experiments indicated that cortical excitability was minimally affected by anodal tDCS. Bayesian analyses indicated that the null model was more favored than the main or the interaction effects model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Motor cortical excitability was not altered by anodal tDCS and did not differ by devices or electrode sizes used in the study. Future studies should examine if behavioral outcomes are different based on tDCS device or electrode size.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"39 5\",\"pages\":\"379-391\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8926458/pdf/nihms-1783830.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211210\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:科学界越来越关注经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)的效果在不同研究中存在很大差异。使用不同的 tDCS 设备和电极尺寸可能是造成这种差异的原因之一;但这一问题尚未得到实验验证:评估 tDCS 设备和电极尺寸对股四头肌运动皮层兴奋性的影响:方法:使用一种新颖的诱发力矩方法,在一定的 TMS 强度范围内量化 tDCS 设备和电极大小对股四头肌运动皮层兴奋性的影响。在实验 1 中,使用两种设备(Empi 和 Soterix)分别在两天内测量了 20 个人的阳极 tDCS 引起的兴奋性变化。在实验 2 中,根据电极尺寸将三十人分为三组,测量了阳极 tDCS 诱导的兴奋性变化。在数据分析过程中,除了经典的假设检验外,还使用了一种新颖的贝叶斯方法:结果:没有明显的主效应或交互效应,这表明不同的 tDCS 设备或电极尺寸对大脑皮层的兴奋性没有影响。两项实验中都没有前后时间效应,这表明皮层兴奋性受阳极 tDCS 的影响很小。贝叶斯分析表明,无效模型比主效应或交互效应模型更受青睐:结论:运动皮层兴奋性未受阳极tDCS的影响,也未因研究中使用的设备或电极尺寸而有所不同。未来的研究应考察行为结果是否会因 tDCS 设备或电极大小而有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of conventional transcranial direct current stimulation devices and electrode sizes on motor cortical excitability of the quadriceps muscle.

Background: There is a growing concern among the scientific community that the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are highly variable across studies. The use of different tDCS devices and electrode sizes may contribute to this variability; however, this issue has not been verified experimentally.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability.

Methods: The effect of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability was quantified across a range of TMS intensities using a novel evoked torque approach that has been previously shown to be highly reliable. In experiment 1, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in twenty individuals using two devices (Empi and Soterix) on two separate days. In experiment 2, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in thirty individuals divided into three groups based on the electrode size. A novel Bayesian approach was used in addition to the classical hypothesis testing during data analyses.

Results: There were no significant main or interaction effects, indicating that cortical excitability did not differ between different tDCS devices or electrode sizes. The lack of pre-post time effect in both experiments indicated that cortical excitability was minimally affected by anodal tDCS. Bayesian analyses indicated that the null model was more favored than the main or the interaction effects model.

Conclusions: Motor cortical excitability was not altered by anodal tDCS and did not differ by devices or electrode sizes used in the study. Future studies should examine if behavioral outcomes are different based on tDCS device or electrode size.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.60%
发文量
22
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This interdisciplinary journal publishes papers relating to the plasticity and response of the nervous system to accidental or experimental injuries and their interventions, transplantation, neurodegenerative disorders and experimental strategies to improve regeneration or functional recovery and rehabilitation. Experimental and clinical research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant experimental or clinical relevance and interest to a multidisciplinary audience. Experiments on un-anesthetized animals should conform with the standards for the use of laboratory animals as established by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, US National Academy of Sciences. Experiments in which paralytic agents are used must be justified. Patient identity should be concealed. All manuscripts are sent out for blind peer review to editorial board members or outside reviewers. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience is a member of Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信