Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36188449›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation - An intraindividual comparison of different techniques.

Rebecca Herzog, Till M Berger, Martje G Pauly, Honghu Xue, Elmar Rueckert, Alexander Münchau, Tobias Bäumer, Anne Weissbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cerebellar Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Essential Tremor Patients with Thalamic Stimulation: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Rebecca HerzogInstitute of Systems Motor Science, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Till M BergerInstitute of Systems Motor Science, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Martje G PaulyInstitute of Systems Motor Science, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Honghu XueInstitute for Robotics and Cognitive Systems, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Elmar RueckertMontanuniversität Leoben, Leoben, Austria.
Alexander MünchauInstitute of Systems Motor Science, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Tobias BäumerInstitute of Systems Motor Science, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Anne WeissbachInstitute of Systems Motor Science, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial current stimulation (tCS) techniques have been shown to induce cortical plasticity. As an important relay in the motor system, the cerebellum is an interesting target for plasticity induction using tCS, aiming to modulate its excitability and connectivity. However, until now it remains unclear, which is the most effective tCS method for inducing plasticity in the cerebellum. Thus, in this study, the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), 50 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (50 Hz tACS), and high frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) were compared with sham stimulation in 20 healthy subjects in a within-subject design. tCS was applied targeting the cerebellar lobe VIIIA using neuronavigation. We measured corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), and cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) and performed a sensor-based movement analysis at baseline and three times after the intervention (post1 = 15 min; post2 = 55 min; post3 = 95 min). Corticospinal excitability increased following cerebellar tACS and tRNS compared to sham stimulation. This effect was most pronounced directly after stimulation but lasted for at least 55 min after tACS. Cortico-cortical and cerebello-cortical conditioning protocols, as well as sensor-based movement analyses, did not change. Our findings suggest that cerebellar 50 Hz tACS is the most effective protocol to change corticospinal excitability.

Indexed as

cerebellumIMUplasticitytACStDCSTMStRNS

Identifiers

PMID36188449
PMCPMC9521312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.