Motor Sequence Learning across Multiple Sessions Is Not Facilitated by Targeting Consolidation with Posttraining tDCS in Patients with Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.
Adult
Cross-Over Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Learning
/ physiology
Male
Memory Consolidation
/ physiology
Middle Aged
Motor Skills
/ physiology
Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive
/ physiopathology
Pilot Projects
Psychomotor Performance
/ physiology
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
/ methods
Journal
Neural plasticity
ISSN: 1687-5443
Titre abrégé: Neural Plast
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883417
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
08
12
2020
accepted:
27
01
2021
entrez:
1
4
2021
pubmed:
2
4
2021
medline:
19
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Compared to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), progressive MS is characterized by a lack of spontaneous recovery and a poor response to pharmaceutical immunomodulatory treatment. These patients may, therefore, particularly benefit from interventions that augment training-induced plasticity of the central nervous system. In this cross-sectional double-blind cross-over pilot study, effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor sequence learning were examined across four sessions on days 1, 3, 5, and 8 in 16 patients with progressive MS. Active or sham anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex was applied immediately after each training session. Participants took part in two experiments separated by at least four weeks, which differed with respect to the type of posttraining tDCS (active or sham). While task performance across blocks of training and across sessions improved significantly in both the active and sham tDCS experiment, neither online nor offline motor learning was modulated by the type of tDCS. Accordingly, the primary endpoint (task performance on day 8) did not differ between stimulation conditions. In sum, patients with progressive MS are able to improve performance in an ecologically valid motor sequence learning task through training. However, even multisession posttraining tDCS fails to promote motor learning in progressive MS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33790962
doi: 10.1155/2021/6696341
pmc: PMC7984928
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6696341Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Harald Seelmann-Eggebert et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the current research.
Références
Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):800-804
pubmed: 21335013
Curr Opin Neurol. 2014 Jun;27(3):271-8
pubmed: 24722325
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Aug;104(2):1134-40
pubmed: 20538777
Ann Neurol. 2013 Jan;73(1):10-5
pubmed: 23225625
Neurology. 2010 Mar 2;74(9):728-35
pubmed: 20194911
Neuroscience. 2014 Dec 26;283:222-30
pubmed: 24881573
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008;31:247-69
pubmed: 18558855
Front Neurosci. 2017 Dec 13;11:710
pubmed: 29321723
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):169-180
pubmed: 29320652
Nature. 2002 Feb 7;415(6872):640-4
pubmed: 11807497
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012 Sep;13(9):658-64
pubmed: 22903222
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32(2):293-300
pubmed: 24169364
Neuron. 2011 Nov 3;72(3):443-54
pubmed: 22078504
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Jan;25(1):109-17
pubmed: 23960213
Neuron. 2006 Oct 5;52(1):61-76
pubmed: 17015227
Mult Scler. 2011 Jan;17(1):103-15
pubmed: 20834040
Neurosci Lett. 2013 Oct 25;554:151-5
pubmed: 24036466
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 12;107(41):17839-44
pubmed: 20876115
Neurobiol Aging. 2017 Jan;49:1-8
pubmed: 27723499
J Neurosci. 2014 Apr 9;34(15):5302-10
pubmed: 24719108
Front Behav Neurosci. 2016 Jan 22;10:4
pubmed: 26834593
Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 15;67:283-97
pubmed: 23194819
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):861-8
pubmed: 9448252
Semin Neurol. 1998;18(3):301-7
pubmed: 9817534
Neurobiol Aging. 2010 Dec;31(12):2160-8
pubmed: 19201066
Brain Stimul. 2008 Jul;1(3):206-23
pubmed: 20633386
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
J Pers Assess. 1996 Dec;67(3):588-97
pubmed: 8991972
Hippocampus. 2013 Nov;23(11):985-1004
pubmed: 23929594
Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Feb;129(2):494-502
pubmed: 29223355
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Feb 3;106(5):1590-5
pubmed: 19164589
J Neurol. 2018 Oct;265(10):2302-2311
pubmed: 30083954
Neuropsychologia. 2020 Sep;146:107555
pubmed: 32653440
Neuroimage. 2020 Dec;223:117363
pubmed: 32919057
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Neuroimage. 2020 Dec;223:117323
pubmed: 32882377
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019 Dec;18(12):905-922
pubmed: 31399729
Eur J Neurosci. 2004 May;19(10):2888-92
pubmed: 15147322
Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(3):252-62
pubmed: 12457751
J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 May 15;15(4):619-26
pubmed: 12803972
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Apr;128(4):589-603
pubmed: 28231477
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):845-50
pubmed: 16427357
J Neurosci. 2005 Jul 6;25(27):6372-8
pubmed: 16000627
Neuron. 2008 Apr 24;58(2):261-72
pubmed: 18439410
Nervenarzt. 2006 Feb;77(2):165-6, 168-70, 172-4
pubmed: 16160812