Research

Jump to: Other

19 pages, 2638 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Reversed Polarity bi-tDCS over M1 during a Five Days Motor Task Training Did Not Influence Motor Learning. A Triple-Blind Clinical Trial

by Laura Flix-Díez, Miguel Delicado-Miralles, Francisco Gurdiel-Álvarez, Enrique Velasco, María Galán-Calle and Sergio Lerma Lara

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(6), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060691 - 25 May 2021

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3308

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a way of improving motor learning. Our purpose was to explore the reversal bilateral tDCS effects on manual dexterity training, during five days, with the retention component measured after 5 days to determine whether [...] Read more.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a way of improving motor learning. Our purpose was to explore the reversal bilateral tDCS effects on manual dexterity training, during five days, with the retention component measured after 5 days to determine whether somatosensory effects were produced. In this randomized, triple-blind clinical trial, 28 healthy subjects (14 women) were recruited and randomized into tDCS and placebo groups, although only 23 participants (13 women) finished the complete protocol. Participants received the real or placebo treatment during five consecutive days, while performing a motor dexterity training program of 20 min. The motor dexterity and the sensitivity of the hand were assessed pre- and post-day 1, post 5 days of training, and 5 days after training concluded. Training improved motor dexterity, but tDCS only produced a tendency to improve retention. The intervention did not produce changes in the somatosensory variables assessed. Thus, reversal bi-tDCS had no effects during motor learning on healthy subjects, but it could favor the retention of the motor skills acquired. These results do not support the cooperative inter-hemispheric model. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 684 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Pain Modulation in Drug-Resistant Chronic Cluster Headache

by Javier Díaz-de-Terán, Javier A. Membrilla, José Paz-Solís, Iñigo de Lorenzo, Javier Roa, Manuel Lara-Lara, Alfonso Gil-Martínez and Exuperio Díez-Tejedor

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(2), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020236 - 13 Feb 2021

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2196

Abstract

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical treatment proposed for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH). Long-term series assessing its efficacy are scarce. We designed a retrospective observational study with consecutive sampling, evaluating the follow-up of 17 drCCH patients who underwent ONS. Our main [...] Read more.

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a surgical treatment proposed for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH). Long-term series assessing its efficacy are scarce. We designed a retrospective observational study with consecutive sampling, evaluating the follow-up of 17 drCCH patients who underwent ONS. Our main endpoint was the reduction the rate of attacks per week. We also evaluated the pain intensity through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), patient overall perceived improvement and decrease in oral medication intake. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (4.5–9.0), patients decreased from a median of 30 weekly attacks to 22.5 (5.6–37.5, p = 0.012), 7.5 at 1 year (p = 0.006) and 15.0 at the end of follow-up (p = 0.041). The VAS decreased from a median of 10.0 to 8.0 (p = 0.011) at three months, to 7.0 (p = 0.008) at twelve months and 7.0 (p = 0.003) at the end of the follow-up. A total of 23.5% had an overall perceived improvement of ≥70% at 3 months, 41.2% at 1 year and 27.8% at the end of follow-up. Reducing prophylactic oral medication was possible in 76.5% and it was stopped in 17.7%. Triptan use decreased in all the responder patients and 17.7% stopped its intake. A total of 41.2% presented mild adverse events. In conclusion, our long-term experience suggests that ONS could be an interesting option for drCCH-selected patients, as it is a beneficial and minimally invasive procedure with no serious adverse events. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 2270 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Applied to the Left Premotor Cortex Interferes with Explicit Reproduction of a Motor Sequence

by Bettina Pollok, Claire Schmitz-Justen and Vanessa Krause

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(2), 207; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020207 - 09 Feb 2021

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2710

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that allows the modulation of cortical excitability. TDCS effects can outlast the stimulation period presumably due to changes of GABA concentration which play a critical role in use-dependent plasticity. Consequently, tDCS and [...] Read more.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that allows the modulation of cortical excitability. TDCS effects can outlast the stimulation period presumably due to changes of GABA concentration which play a critical role in use-dependent plasticity. Consequently, tDCS and learning-related synaptic plasticity are assumed to share common mechanisms. Motor sequence learning has been related to activation changes within a cortico-subcortical network and findings from a meta-analysis point towards a core network comprising the cerebellum as well as the primary motor (M1) and the dorsolateral premotor cortex (dPMC). The latter has been particularly related to explicit motor learning by means of brain imaging techniques. We here test whether tDCS applied to the left dPMC affects the acquisition and reproduction of an explicitly learned motor sequence. To this end, 18 healthy volunteers received anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS to the left dPMC and were then trained on a serial reaction time task (SRTT) with their right hand. Immediately after the training and after overnight sleep, reproduction of the learned sequence was tested by means of reaction times as well as explicit recall. Regression analyses suggest that following cathodal tDCS reaction times at the end of the SRTT training-block explained a significant proportion of the number of correctly reported sequence items after overnight sleep. The present data suggest the left premotor cortex as one possible target for the application of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in explicit motor sequence learning with the right hand. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 3106 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Effectiveness of Unihemispheric Concurrent Dual-Site Stimulation over M1 and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Stimulation on Pain Processing: A Triple Blind Cross-Over Control Trial

by Francisco Gurdiel-Álvarez, Yeray González-Zamorano, Sergio Lerma Lara, Julio Gómez-Soriano, Julian Taylor, Juan Pablo Romero, María Gómez Jiménez and Josué Fernández-Carnero

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(2), 188; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020188 - 04 Feb 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2401

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex (M1) produces short-term inhibition of pain. Unihemispheric concurrent dual-site tDCS (UHCDS-tDCS) over the M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has greater effects on cortical excitability than when applied alone, although its effect on [...] Read more.

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex (M1) produces short-term inhibition of pain. Unihemispheric concurrent dual-site tDCS (UHCDS-tDCS) over the M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has greater effects on cortical excitability than when applied alone, although its effect on pain is unknown. The aim of this study was to test if anodal UHCDS-tDCS over the M1 and DLPFC in healthy participants could potentiate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and diminish pain temporal summation (TS). Methods: Thirty participants were randomized to receive a sequence of UHCDS-tDCS, M1-tDCS and sham-tDCS. A 20 min 0.1 mA/cm² anodal or sham-tDCS intervention was applied to each participant during three test sessions, according to a triple-blind cross-over trial design. For the assessment of pain processing before and after tDCS intervention, the following tests were performed: tourniquet conditioned pain modulation (CPM), pressure pain temporal summation (TS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), pressure pain tolerance, mechanosensitivity and cold hyperalgesia. Motor function before and after tDCS intervention was assessed with a dynamometer to measure maximal isometric grip strength. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups for CPM, pressure pain TS, PPT, pressure pain tolerance, neural mechanosensitivity, cold hyperalgesia or grip strength (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Neither UHCDS-tDCS nor M1-tDCS facilitated CPM or inhibited TS in healthy subjects following one intervention session. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 1435 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Conditioned Pain Modulation Effectiveness: An Experimental Study Comparing Test Paradigms and Analyzing Potential Predictors in a Healthy Population

by María del Rocío Ibancos-Losada, María C. Osuna-Pérez, María Yolanda Castellote-Caballero and Ángeles Díaz-Fernández

Brain Sci. 2020, 10(9), 599; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090599 - 30 Aug 2020

Cited by 15 | Viewed by 3866

Abstract

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is an endogenous pain inhibition phenomenon that can be summarized simply as one type of pain being able to inhibit another, which must be in a remote area in relation to the first pain. We aimed to compare the [...] Read more.

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is an endogenous pain inhibition phenomenon that can be summarized simply as one type of pain being able to inhibit another, which must be in a remote area in relation to the first pain. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four CPM test paradigms as well as the association of the CPM effect with potential predictors in 72 healthy volunteers. Pressure pain from an algometer was used as the test stimulus, and pain provoked by cold water or ischemic pressure was used as the conditioning stimulus, applied either sequentially or in parallel. No significant differences were found between the test paradigms, although the cold-parallel test showed the most significant effect size (ηP² = 0.614). No association was found between the CPM effect and sociodemographic variables (age or sex), nor anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, previous history of pain or self-perceived pain tolerance. Nevertheless, a strong association was found between the CPM effect and individual affinity for the stimulus in participants who underwent the cold water test paradigm; this explained around 45% of the total CPM effect when the paradigm (cold water) coincided with personal affinity for the stimulus (“I prefer cold to heat”, “cold is not unpleasant”). Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

11 pages, 807 KiB

Open AccessCase Report

Influence of Mirror Therapy (Specular Face Software) on Electromyographic Behavior of the Facial Muscles for Facial Palsy

by Alfonso Gil-Martínez, Sergio Lerma-Lara, Alfredo Hernando-Jorge, Ana Campos-Vegas, Audrey Aceval, Rafael Pagés-Scasso, Francisco Morán-Burgos and Hector Beltran-Alacreu

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(7), 930; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070930 - 14 Jul 2021

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3630

Abstract

Introduction: Facial paralysis (FP) is a neuromuscular disorder caused by facial nerve injury. There are two main types of FP (which can be either primary or secondary): central and peripheral; Procedure of cases: This case series presents five patients with facial paralysis with [...] Read more.

Introduction: Facial paralysis (FP) is a neuromuscular disorder caused by facial nerve injury. There are two main types of FP (which can be either primary or secondary): central and peripheral; Procedure of cases: This case series presents five patients with facial paralysis with different etiologies. In all cases, we assessed the facial disability index and a clinical test registering the electromyographic activity, with and without biofeedback generated by Specular Face, a new software program; Discussion: After performing the appropriate tests, we checked the patients’ ability to change certain expressions when the Specular Face program was added. We can confirm that the mirror visual feedback therapy changes the behavior of synkinesis and the muscle function in these patients; Conclusion: The use of mirror therapy using a computerized treatment system of facial images yields promising results in modulating the muscle activity of patients with FP. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 398 KiB

Open AccessProtocol

Effects of Percutaneous Electrolysis on Endogenous Pain Modulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study Protocol

by Sergio Varela-Rodríguez, Juan Luis Sánchez-González, José Luis Sánchez-Sánchez, Miguel Delicado-Miralles, Enrique Velasco, César Fernández-de-las-Peñas and Laura Calderón-Díez

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(6), 801; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060801 - 17 Jun 2021

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 3361

Abstract

Percutaneous electrolysis consists of the application of a galvanic electrical current throughout an acupuncture needle. It has been previously hypothesized that needling procedures’ neurophysiological effects may be related to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). This protocol study describes the design of a double-blind (participant, [...] Read more.

Percutaneous electrolysis consists of the application of a galvanic electrical current throughout an acupuncture needle. It has been previously hypothesized that needling procedures’ neurophysiological effects may be related to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). This protocol study describes the design of a double-blind (participant, assessor) randomized controlled trial with the aim to investigate whether percutaneous electrolysis is able to enhance EPM and whether the effect is different between two applications depending on the dosage of the galvanic electrical current. Seventy-two asymptomatic subjects not reporting the presence of pain symptoms the previous 6 months before the study, aged 18–40 years, are randomized into one of four groups: a control group who does not receive any intervention, a needling group who receives a needling intervention without electrical current, a low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (0.3 mA × 90 s), and a high-intensity percutaneous electrolysis group (three bouts of 3 mA × 3 s). Needling intervention consists of ultrasound-guided insertion of the needle on the common extensor tendon of the lateral epicondyle. The primary outcome is conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and secondary outcomes include widespread pressure pain sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds (PPT) over the lateral epicondyle, the cervical spine, and the tibialis anterior muscle) and temporal summation (TS). We expected that percutaneous electrolysis would have a greater influence on CPM than an isolated needling procedure and no intervention. In addition, we also postulated that there might be differences in outcome measures depending on the intensity of the electrical current during the percutaneous electrolysis application. This study makes a new contribution to the field of neurophysiological effects of percutaneous electrolysis and needling interventions. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures

Graphical abstract

14 pages, 453 KiB

Open AccessStudy Protocol

New Approaches Based on Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation and Mental Representation Techniques Targeting Pain in Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Two Study Protocols for Two Randomized Controlled Trials

by Yeray González-Zamorano, Josué Fernández-Carnero, Francisco José Sánchez-Cuesta, Aida Arroyo-Ferrer, Athanasios Vourvopoulos, Patricia Figueiredo, José Ignacio Serrano and Juan Pablo Romero

Brain Sci. 2021, 11(1), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11010065 - 06 Jan 2021

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3382

Abstract

Pain is an under-reported but prevalent symptom in Parkinson’s Disease (PD), impacting patients’ quality of life. Both pain and PD conditions cause cortical excitability reduction and non-invasive brain stimulation. Mental representation techniques are thought to be able to counteract it, also resulting effectively [...] Read more.

Pain is an under-reported but prevalent symptom in Parkinson’s Disease (PD), impacting patients’ quality of life. Both pain and PD conditions cause cortical excitability reduction and non-invasive brain stimulation. Mental representation techniques are thought to be able to counteract it, also resulting effectively in chronic pain conditions. We aim to conduct two independent studies in order to evaluate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and mental representation protocol in the management of pain in PD patients during the ON state: (1) tDCS over the Primary Motor Cortex (M1); and (2) Action Observation (AO) and Motor Imagery (MI) training through a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) using Virtual Reality (AO + MI-BCI). Both studies will include 32 subjects in a longitudinal prospective parallel randomized controlled trial design under different blinding conditions. The main outcomes will be score changes in King’s Parkinson’s Disease Pain Scale, Brief Pain Inventory, Temporal Summation, Conditioned Pain Modulation, and Pain Pressure Threshold. Assessment will be performed pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 15 days post-intervention, in both ON and OFF states. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Neuromodulation on Pain and Motor Learning)

► Show Figures