The comparative effects of unilateral and bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation on motor learning and motor performance: A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis
Publication date: Available online 20 January 2020Source: Journal of Clinical NeuroscienceAuthor(s): Sara Halakoo, Fatemeh Ehsani, Motahareh Hosnian, Maryam Zoghi, Shapour JaberzadehAbstractApplication of unilateral tDCS (Uni-tDCS) vs. bilateral tDCS (Bi-tDCS) is another important factor that can affect the physiological results of tDCS intervention on motor learning and motor performance. According to the evidence, some studies indicated that motor performance or motor learning are facilitated in healthy individuals by application of the Bi-tDCS more than the Uni-tDCS. On the other hand, some studies showed that there was no significant differences between Uni-tDCS and Bi-tDCS; and both techniques were more effective than sham stimulation. In contrast, the other studies have shown more significant effectiveness of Uni-tDCS than Bi-tDCS on motor performance and motor learning. The aim of this study was to systematically review the studies which investigated the effectiveness of Uni-tDCS and Bi-tDCS intervention on the motor learning and motor performance. The search was performed from databases in the Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Medline, Ovid and Science Direct with the keywords of motor behavior, motor performance, motor learning, Bi-tDCS or bilateral tDCS, dual tDCS, Uni-tDCS or unilateral tDCS, anodal tDCS and cathodal tDCS from 2000 to 2019. The results indicated that the study population was a key factor in determining study’s findings. Data meta-analysis sho...
Condition: Epilepsy Intractable Intervention: Other: Direct electrical stimulation Sponsors: University of Pennsylvania; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS); Columbia University; Dartmouth College; Emory University; University of Freiburg; Thomas Jefferson University; University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; Natio nal Institute on Aging (NIA) Recruiting
Conditions: Stroke; Brain Disease; Central Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Cardiovascular Diseases Intervention: Device: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Sponsors: VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System; University of Pittsburgh Recruiting
Conditions: TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury); Stroke; Fibromyalgia; Aging Intervention: Other: Hyperbaric Oxygen Sponsor: Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center Active, not recruiting
Condition: Stroke, Ischemic Intervention: Device: Transcranial direct current stimulation Sponsor: Mahidol University Recruiting
Condition: Cardiac Function Intervention: Behavioral: Acute exercise Sponsor: Turku University Hospital Not yet recruiting
Conditions: Hyperhomocysteinemia, Thrombotic, Cbs-Related; Ischemic Stroke; Epilepsy Intervention: Genetic: Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) deficiency Sponsor: Istanbul Medeniyet University Completed
Conclusions Treadmill training associated with behavioral strategies/home-based exercises seemed to be useful to minimize weight-bearing asymmetry, but not to improve temporal gait asymmetry. Load addition did not show additional benefits.
Functional electrical stimulation therapy (FEST) is a state-of-the-art treatment for retraining motor function after neurological injuries. Recent literature suggests that FEST can be further improved with brain-computer interface (BCI) technology. In this case study, we assessed the feasibility of using BCI-triggered FEST (BCI-FEST) to restore upper limb function in a 57-yr-old man with severe left hemiplegia resulting from a stroke 6 yrs before enrollment in the study. The intervention consisted of two blocks of forty 1-hr BCI-FEST sessions, with three sessions delivered weekly. During therapy, a single-channel BCI was u...
Conclusions: There is extensive and increasing evidence that a range of retinal vascular signs and disease are closely linked to CeVD, including subclinical and clinical CeVD. New technology including AI-DL will allow further translation to clinical utilization.
Conclusions: Stroke management is based on evaluation of individual patient-risk factors. Evaluation and treatment is ideally directed by a vascular neurologist to ensure optimal secondary prevention, especially in cases where an underlying etiology is not identified on initial workup.