ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2019
Offline effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on reaction times of lower extremity movements in people after stroke: a pilot cross-over study.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining transcranial direct current stimulation with aerobic exercise to optimize cortical priming in stroke.Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme · 2021Trial
- Top-down and bottom-up stimulation techniques combined with action observation treatment in stroke rehabilitation: a perspective.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Dual-hemisphere anodal transcranial direct current stimulation improves bilateral motor synergies.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Review of tDCS Configurations for Stimulation of the Lower-Limb Area of Motor Cortex and Cerebellum.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Dynamic changes of region-specific cortical features and scalp-to-cortex distance: implications for transcranial current stimulation modeling.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Computer-Delivered Cognitive Training and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Patients With HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder: A Randomized Trial.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown promise for rehabilitation after stroke. Ipsilesional anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) over the motor cortex increases corticospinal excitability, while contralesional cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) restores interhemispheric balance, both resulting in offline improved reaction times of delayed voluntary upper-extremity movements. We aimed to investigate whether tDCS would also have a beneficial effect on delayed leg motor responses after stroke. In addition, we identified whether variability in tDCS effects was associated with the level of leg motor function.
methodsIn a cross-over design, 13 people with chronic stroke completed three 15-min sessions of anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex on separate days in an order balanced across participants. Directly after stimulation, participants performed a comprehensive set of lower-extremity tasks involving the paretic tibialis anterior (TA): voluntary ankle-dorsiflexion, gait initiation, and backward balance perturbation. For all tasks, TA onset latencies were determined. In addition, leg motor function was determined by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - leg score (FMA-L). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to reveal tDCS effects on reaction times. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish the relation between tDCS effects and leg motor function.
resultsFor all tasks, TA reaction times did not differ across tDCS sessions. For gait initiation and backward balance perturbation, differences between sham and active stimulation (a-tDCS or c-tDCS) did not correlate with leg motor function. Yet, for ankle dorsiflexion, individual reaction time differences between c-tDCS and sham were strongly associated with FMA-L, with more severely impaired patients exhibiting slower paretic reaction times following c-tDCS.
conclusionWe found no evidence for offline tDCS-induced benefits. Interestingly, we found that c-tDCS may have unfavorable effects on voluntary control of the paretic leg in severely impaired patients with chronic stroke. This finding points at potential vicarious control from the unaffected hemisphere to the paretic leg. The absence of tDCS-induced effects on gait and balance, two functionally relevant tasks, shows that such motor behavior is inadequately stimulated by currently used tDCS applications.
trial registrationThe study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5684; April 13th, 2016).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.