Individual differences in TMS sensitivity influence the efficacy of tDCS in facilitating sensorimotor adaptation.
Adaptation, Physiological
/ physiology
Adult
Cognition
/ physiology
Female
Humans
Individuality
Learning
/ physiology
Male
Motor Cortex
/ physiology
Psychomotor Performance
/ physiology
Rest
/ physiology
Sensorimotor Cortex
/ physiology
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
/ methods
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
/ methods
Individual differences
Sensorimotor learning
TMS
rMT
tDCS
Journal
Brain stimulation
ISSN: 1876-4754
Titre abrégé: Brain Stimul
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101465726
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
05
07
2018
revised:
07
03
2019
accepted:
07
03
2019
pubmed:
2
4
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
2
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can enhance cognitive function in healthy individuals, with promising applications as a therapeutic intervention. Despite this potential, variability in the efficacy of tDCS has been a considerable concern. /Hypothesis: Given that tDCS is always applied at a set intensity, we examined whether individual differences in sensitivity to brain stimulation might be one variable that modulates the efficacy of tDCS in a motor learning task. In the first part of the experiment, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over primary motor cortex (M1) was used to determine each participant's resting motor threshold (rMT). This measure was used as a proxy of individual sensitivity to brain stimulation. In an experimental group of 28 participants, 2 mA tDCS was then applied during a motor learning task with the anodal electrode positioned over left M1. Another 14 participants received sham stimulation. M1-Anodal tDCS facilitated learning relative to participants who received sham stimulation. Of primary interest was a within-group analysis of the experimental group, showing that the rate of learning was positively correlated with rMT: Participants who were more sensitive to brain stimulation as operationalized by our TMS proxy (low rMT), showed faster adaptation. Methodologically, the results indicate that TMS sensitivity can predict tDCS efficacy in a behavioral task, providing insight into one source of variability that may contribute to replication problems with tDCS. Theoretically, the results provide further evidence of a role of sensorimotor cortex in adaptation, with the boost from tDCS observed during acquisition.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can enhance cognitive function in healthy individuals, with promising applications as a therapeutic intervention. Despite this potential, variability in the efficacy of tDCS has been a considerable concern.
OBJECTIVE
/Hypothesis: Given that tDCS is always applied at a set intensity, we examined whether individual differences in sensitivity to brain stimulation might be one variable that modulates the efficacy of tDCS in a motor learning task.
METHODS
In the first part of the experiment, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over primary motor cortex (M1) was used to determine each participant's resting motor threshold (rMT). This measure was used as a proxy of individual sensitivity to brain stimulation. In an experimental group of 28 participants, 2 mA tDCS was then applied during a motor learning task with the anodal electrode positioned over left M1. Another 14 participants received sham stimulation.
RESULTS
M1-Anodal tDCS facilitated learning relative to participants who received sham stimulation. Of primary interest was a within-group analysis of the experimental group, showing that the rate of learning was positively correlated with rMT: Participants who were more sensitive to brain stimulation as operationalized by our TMS proxy (low rMT), showed faster adaptation.
CONCLUSIONS
Methodologically, the results indicate that TMS sensitivity can predict tDCS efficacy in a behavioral task, providing insight into one source of variability that may contribute to replication problems with tDCS. Theoretically, the results provide further evidence of a role of sensorimotor cortex in adaptation, with the boost from tDCS observed during acquisition.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30930208
pii: S1935-861X(19)30087-7
doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2019.03.008
pmc: PMC6592723
mid: NIHMS1523800
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
992-1000Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS074917
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS092079
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Physiol. 2011 Dec 1;589(Pt 23):5845-55
pubmed: 22005678
Cortex. 2014 Sep;58:99-111
pubmed: 24998337
Brain Stimul. 2015 May-Jun;8(3):666-7
pubmed: 25937023
Brain Stimul. 2016 Jan-Feb;9(1):8-15
pubmed: 26493498
Brain Stimul. 2014 May-Jun;7(3):372-80
pubmed: 24630849
J Neurosci. 2011 Apr 6;31(14):5392-7
pubmed: 21471374
J Neurophysiol. 2017 Aug 1;118(2):655-665
pubmed: 28298304
Brain Stimul. 2017 Jul - Aug;10(4):865-866
pubmed: 28420582
Brain Stimul. 2015 Nov-Dec;8(6):1130-7
pubmed: 26294061
Neuroimage. 2016 Oct 1;139:1-7
pubmed: 27288552
Cereb Cortex. 2011 Aug;21(8):1761-70
pubmed: 21139077
J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1273-1288
pubmed: 27723104
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Dec;126(12):2342-7
pubmed: 25922127
Brain Stimul. 2013 Nov;6(6):932-7
pubmed: 23664681
Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 1;109:140-50
pubmed: 25613437
Brain Stimul. 2014 May-Jun;7(3):468-75
pubmed: 24630848
Elife. 2018 Feb 15;7:
pubmed: 29446753
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Sep;25(9):3077-85
pubmed: 24846147
Brain Stimul. 2008 Jul;1(3):206-23
pubmed: 20633386
J Neurosci Methods. 2001 Dec 15;112(2):193-202
pubmed: 11716954
Front Cell Neurosci. 2015 May 12;9:181
pubmed: 26029052
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 May;117(5):1037-46
pubmed: 16564206
PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Mar;7(3):e1001096
pubmed: 21390266
Neurosci Lett. 2020 Feb 6;719:133330
pubmed: 29294333
Nat Neurosci. 2015 Apr;18(4):597-602
pubmed: 25706473
J Neurosci. 2003 Oct 8;23(27):9032-45
pubmed: 14534237
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Jan;66:213-36
pubmed: 25448853
PLoS One. 2015 May 07;10(5):e0126448
pubmed: 25951227
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Aug;114(2):969-77
pubmed: 26063781
J Neurosci Methods. 2007 Aug 15;164(1):177-90
pubmed: 17517438
Dose Response. 2017 Feb 09;15(1):1559325816685467
pubmed: 28210202
J Neurol Sci. 2018 Jul 15;390:172-177
pubmed: 29801881
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Jul;74:96-107
pubmed: 25721567
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Front Neurosci. 2018 Jun 25;12:426
pubmed: 29988501
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Sep;36(9):1574-9
pubmed: 15354040
Exp Brain Res. 2016 Sep;234(9):2629-42
pubmed: 27150317
Neurosci Lett. 2020 Feb 6;719:133678
pubmed: 29960054
Neuroimage. 2014 Sep;98:147-58
pubmed: 24816533
J Physiol. 2009 Jun 15;587(Pt 12):2949-61
pubmed: 19403605
Neural Plast. 2015;2015:530423
pubmed: 25866683
Brain Stimul. 2014 Jul-Aug;7(4):521-4
pubmed: 24776786
Depress Anxiety. 2016 Dec;33(12):1132-1140
pubmed: 27802585
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Jul;30(7):2044-55
pubmed: 18973261
J Neurosci. 2017 Mar 8;37(10):2686-2696
pubmed: 28179557
Nature. 2000 Oct 12;407(6805):742-7
pubmed: 11048720
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015 Sep;62(9):2095-105
pubmed: 25910001
Brain Stimul. 2009 Oct;2(4):201-7, 207.e1
pubmed: 20648973
Nat Commun. 2018 Feb 2;9(1):483
pubmed: 29396478