103,907 research outputs found
Plasticity induced by non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation: A position paper
Several techniques and protocols of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic and electrical stimuli, have been developed in the past decades. Non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation may modulate cortical excitability outlasting the period of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation itself from several minutes to more than one hour. Quite a few lines of evidence, including pharmacological, physiological and behavioral studies in humans and animals, suggest that the effects of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation are produced through effects on synaptic plasticity. However, there is still a need for more direct and conclusive evidence. The fragility and variability of the effects are the major challenges that non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation currently faces. A variety of factors, including biological variation, measurement reproducibility and the neuronal state of the stimulated area, which can be affected by factors such as past and present physical activity, may influence the response to non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation. Work is ongoing to test whether the reliability and consistency of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation can be improved by controlling or monitoring neuronal state and by optimizing the protocol and timing of stimulation
Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee
These guidelines provide an up-date of previous IFCN report on "Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application" (Rossini et al., 1994). A new Committee, composed of international experts, some of whom were in the panel of the 1994 "Report", was selected to produce a current state-of-the-art review of non-invasive stimulation both for clinical application and research in neuroscience. Since 1994, the international scientific community has seen a rapid increase in non-invasive brain stimulation in studying cognition, brain-behavior relationship and pathophysiology of various neurologic and psychiatric disorders. New paradigms of stimulation and new techniques have been developed. Furthermore, a large number of studies and clinical trials have demonstrated potential therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, especially for TMS. Recent guidelines can be found in the literature covering specific aspects of non-invasive brain stimulation, such as safety (Rossi et al., 2009), methodology (Groppa et al., 2012) and therapeutic applications (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). This up-dated review covers theoretical, physiological and practical aspects of non-invasive stimulation of brain, spinal cord, nerve roots and peripheral nerves in the light of more updated knowledge, and include some recent extensions and developments
Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain
Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration.Various devices are available that can electrically stimulate the brain without the need for surgery or any invasive treatment in order to manage chronic pain. There are four main treatment types: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in which the brain is stimulated by a coil applied to the scalp, cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in which electrodes are clipped to the ears or applied to the scalp, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE) in which electrodes are applied to the scalp. These have been used to try to reduce pain by aiming to alter the activity of the brain, but the efficacy of these treatments is uncertain.
This review update included 56 studies: 30 of rTMS, 11 of CES, 14 of tDCS and one of RINCE. We judged only three studies as having a low risk of bias. Low or very low-quality evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS and rTMS applied to pre-frontal areas of the brain are not effective but that a single dose of high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex area of the brain provides short-term pain relief. This effect appears to be small and may be exaggerated by a number of sources of bias. Studies that gave a course of multiple treatments of rTMS produced conflicting results with no overall effect seen when we pooled the results of these studies. Most studies of rTMS are small and there is substantial variation between studies in terms of the treatment methods used. Low-quality evidence does not suggest that CES or tDCS are effective treatments for chronic pain. A single small study of RINCE provided very low-quality evidence of a short-term effect on pain. For all forms of stimulation the evidence is not conclusive and uncertainty remains.
The reporting of side effects varied across the studies. Of the studies that clearly reported side effects, short-lived and minor side effects such as headache, nausea and skin irritation were usually reported both after real and sham stimulation. There were two reports of seizure following real rTMS.
While the broad conclusions for rTMS and CES have not changed substantially, the addition of this new evidence and the application of the GRADE system has modified some of our interpretation. Previous readers should re-read this update.
More studies of rigorous design and adequate size are required to evaluate accurately all forms of non-invasive brain stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain
Non-invasive brain stimulation therapies
Noninvasive brain stimulation therapies are a promising field for the development of new protocols for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders. They are based on the stimulation of neural networks with the intent of modeling their synaptic activity to adequate levels. For this, it is necessary to precisely determine which networks are related to which brain functions, and the normal activation level of each of these networks, so that it is possible to direct the stimulation to the affected networks in order to induce the desired effects. These relationships are under intense investigation by the scientific community, and will contribute to the advancement of treatments by neurostimulation, with the emergence of increasingly accurate and effective protocols for different disorders. Currently, the most used techniques are Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, with the most common applications being for treating Major Depressive Disorder. The advancement of research in this field may determine new target networks for stimulation in the treatment of other disorders, extending the application of these techniques and also our knowledge about brain functioning.As terapias biológicas não invasivas se apresentam como um campo promissor para o desenvolvimento de novos protocolos de tratamento de transtornos neuropsiquiátricos. Elas se baseiam na estimulação de redes neurais com intuito de modular sua atividade sináptica para nÃveis adequados. Para isso, é necessário a determinação precisa de quais redes estão relacionadas a quais funções cerebrais, e do nÃvel de ativação normal de cada uma dessas redes, para que então seja possÃvel direcionar a estimulação à s redes afetadas a fim de induzir os efeitos desejados. Essas relações estão sob intensa investigação pela comunidade cientÃfica, e vão contribuir para o avanço dos tratamentos por neuroestimulação, com o surgimento de protocolos cada vez mais precisos e efetivos para diferentes transtornos. Atualmente, as técnicas mais utilizadas são a Estimulação Transcraniana por Corrente ContÃnua e a Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana, sendo a aplicação mais comum no tratamento do Transtorno Depressivo Maior. O avanço das pesquisas possivelmente determinará novas redes alvo para estimulação no tratamento de outros transtornos, estendendo a aplicação dessas técnicas e também do nosso conhecimento sobre o funcionamento cerebral
Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation to the intact hemisphere improves visual function after unilateral ablation of visual cortex
Damage to cerebral systems is frequently followed by the emergence of compensatory mechanisms, which serve to reduce the effects of brain damage and allow recovery of function. Intrinsic recovery, however, is rarely complete. Non-invasive brain stimulation technologies have the potential to actively shape neural circuits and enhance recovery from brain damage. In this study, a stable deficit for detecting and orienting to visual stimuli presented in the contralesional visual hemifield was generated by producing unilateral brain damage of the right posterior parietal and contiguous visual cortical areas. A long regimen of inhibitory non-invasive transcranial directcurrent stimulation (cathodal 2mA, 20 min) was applied to the contralateral (intact) posterior parietal cortex over 14 weeks (total of 70 sessions, one per day, five days per week) and behavioral outcomes were periodically assessed. In three out of four stimulated cats, lasting recovery of visuospatial function was observed. Recovery started after 2-3 weeks of stimulation, and recovered targets were located first in the periphery, and moved to more central visual field locations with the accrual of stimulation sessions. Recovery for moving tasks followed a biphasic pattern before reaching plateau levels. Recovery did not occur for more difficult visual tasks. These findings highlight the ability of multiple sessions of transcranial direct-current stimulation to produce recovery of visuospatial function after unilateral brain damage
Critically appraised paper: Non-invasive brain stimulation does not enhance the effect of robotic-assisted upper limb training on arm motor recovery after stroke [commentary]
In people with hemiparesis after stroke, intensive upper limb motor practice, such as robot-assisted training, can lead to clinically meaningful improvement, yet the benefit typically falls far short of full functional recovery. Supplemental therapies have the potential to enhance training effects, and non-invasive brain stimulation as a candidate add-on therapy has previously been reported; this literature was systematically reviewed by Reis and colleagues. The review found that there is no beneficial effect of non-invasive brain stimulation as a supplement to robot-assisted training. The eight reviewed trials used a variety of existing best non-invasive brain stimulation practices and available robotic technology
Variability in non-invasive brain stimulation studies: reasons and results
Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (NIBS), such as Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS), Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS) and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), are widely used to probe plasticity in the human motor cortex (M1). Although TBS, PAS and tDCS differ in terms of physiological mechanisms responsible for experimentally-induced cortical plasticity, they all share the ability to elicit long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) in M1. However, NIBS techniques are all affected by relevant variability in intra- and inter-subject responses. A growing number of factors contributing to NIBS variability have been recently identified and reported. In this review, we have readdressed the issue of variability in human NIBS studies. We have first briefly discussed the physiological mechanisms responsible for TBS, PAS and tDCS-induced cortical plasticity. Then, we have provided statistical measures of intra- and inter-subject variability, as calculated in previous studies. Finally, we have reported in detail known sources of variability by categorizing them into physiological, technical and statistical factors. Improving knowledge about sources of variability could lead to relevant advances in designing new tailored NIBS protocols in physiological and pathological conditions
Plasticity and dystonia: a hypothesis shrouded in variability.
Studying plasticity mechanisms with Professor John Rothwell was a shared highlight of our careers. In this article, we discuss non-invasive brain stimulation techniques which aim to induce and quantify plasticity, the mechanisms and nature of their inherent variability and use such observations to review the idea that excessive and abnormal plasticity is a pathophysiological substrate of dystonia. We have tried to define the tone of our review by a couple of Professor John Rothwell's many inspiring characteristics; his endless curiosity to refine knowledge and disease models by scientific exploration and his wise yet humble readiness to revise scientific doctrines when the evidence is supportive. We conclude that high variability of response to non-invasive brain stimulation plasticity protocols significantly clouds the interpretation of historical findings in dystonia research. There is an opportunity to wipe the slate clean of assumptions and armed with an informative literature in health, re-evaluate whether excessive plasticity has a causal role in the pathophysiology of dystonia
- …