Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28142257›Full record

Trial reportBrain connectivity2017

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting Primary Motor Versus Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortices: Proof-of-Concept Study Investigating Functional Connectivity of Thalamocortical Networks Specific to Sensory-Affective Information Processing.

Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian, David A Cunningham, Kelsey A Potter-Baker, Erik B Beall, Sarah M Roelle, Nicole M Varnerin, Andre G Machado, Stephen E Jones, Mark J Lowe, Ela B Plow

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brain connectivity, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
David A Cunningham1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Kelsey A Potter-Baker1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Erik B Beall3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Sarah M Roelle1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Nicole M Varnerin1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Andre G Machado4 Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Stephen E Jones3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Mark J Lowe3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Ela B Plow1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation , Cleveland, Ohio.
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
Brain Stimulation- aided Stroke Rehabilitation: Neural Mechanisms of RecoveryK01HD069504 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI PLOW, ELA B · 2011 to 2015
$531k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD069504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pain matrix is comprised of an extensive network of brain structures involved in sensory and/or affective information processing. The thalamus is a key structure constituting the pain matrix. The thalamus serves as a relay center receiving information from multiple ascending pathways and relating information to and from multiple cortical areas. However, it is unknown how thalamocortical networks specific to sensory-affective information processing are functionally integrated. Here, in a proof-of-concept study in healthy humans, we aimed to understand this connectivity using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC). We compared changes in functional connectivity (FC) with DLPFC tDCS to changes in FC with M1 tDCS. FC changes were also compared to further investigate its relation with individual's baseline experience of pain. We hypothesized that resting-state FC would change based on tDCS location and would represent known thalamocortical networks. Ten right-handed individuals received a single application of anodal tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) to right M1 and DLPFC in a single-blind, sham-controlled crossover study. FC changes were studied between ventroposterolateral (VPL), the sensory nucleus of thalamus, and cortical areas involved in sensory information processing and between medial dorsal (MD), the affective nucleus, and cortical areas involved in affective information processing. Individual's perception of pain at baseline was assessed using cutaneous heat pain stimuli. We found that anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between VPL and sensorimotor cortices, although FC effects were greater with M1 tDCS. Similarly, anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between MD and motor cortices, but only DLPFC tDCS modulated FC between MD and affective cortices, like DLPFC. Our findings suggest that M1 stimulation primarily modulates FC of sensory networks, whereas DLPFC stimulation modulates FC of both sensory and affective networks. Our findings when replicated in a larger group of individuals could provide useful evidence that may inform future studies on pain to differentiate between effects of M1 and DLPFC stimulation. Notably, our finding that individuals with high baseline pain thresholds experience greater FC changes with DLPFC tDCS implies the role of DLPFC in pain modulation, particularly pain tolerance.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAdultCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMotor CortexNeural PathwaysPain PerceptionPrefrontal CortexSingle-Blind Methoddorsolateral prefrontal cortexfunctional connectivitymotor cortexresting statethalamustranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID28142257
PMCPMC5399740
OpenAlexW2584786405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.