| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 10767 | | | Printed | 243 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 112 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 14 | | |
|
Click on image for details.
|
|
 |
| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
|
|
| Year : 2019 | Volume
: 67
| Issue : 2 | Page : 417-423 |
A review of transcranial electrical stimulation methods in stroke rehabilitation
Cassandra D Solomons, Vivekanandan Shanmugasundaram
School of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
| Date of Web Publication | 13-May-2019 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vivekanandan Shanmugasundaram
School of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.258057
Transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) uses direct or alternating current to non-invasively stimulate the brain. Neuronal activity in the brain is modulated by the electrical field according to the polarity of the current being applied. TES includes transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation, and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). tDCS and tACS are the two non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that have been used alone or in combination with other rehabilitative therapies for the improvement of motor control in hemiparesis. Increasing research in these methods is being carried out to improvise on the existing technology because they have proven to exhibit a lasting effect, thereby contributing to brain plasticity and motor re-learning. Artificial stimulation of the lesioned or non-lesioned hemisphere induces participation of its cells when a movement is being performed. The devices are portable, stimulation is easy to deliver, and they are not known to cause any major side effects which are the foremost reasons for their trials in stroke rehabilitation. Recent research is focused on maximizing the outcome of stroke rehabilitation by combining them with other modalities. This review focuses on stimulation protocols, parameters, and the results obtained by these techniques and their combinations.
Keywords: Transcranial alternating current stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial electrical stimulation
Key Message: Motor recovery and control poses a great challenge in stroke rehabilitation. Transcranial electrical stimulation methods look promising in this regard as they have been shown to augment long-term and short-term potentiation in the brain which may have a role in motor re-learning. This review discusses transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial alternating current stimulation in stroke rehabilitation.
How to cite this article:
Solomons CD, Shanmugasundaram V. A review of transcranial electrical stimulation methods in stroke rehabilitation. Neurol India 2019;67:417-23 |
According to World Health Organization (WHO) statistics on 2016, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the foremost cause of death and adult disability worldwide.[1],[2] Stroke statistics in India show that the incidence of stroke was 435/100,000 population and only one in three stroke survivors are hospitalized and given further rehabilitation because treatment is expensive.[3]
Stroke survivors are faced with paralysis of one side of the body, that is, the side contra-lateral to the affected side in the brain. Rehabilitation aims at strengthening these muscles to prevent wastage and bring back function to the maximum possible extent. Taking the upper extremity into consideration, a combination of muscle over-activity (spastic muscle) in certain groups and weakening in other groups causes poor motor control leading to deformities and inability to reach, grasp, and release objects.
Various therapies such as splinting, stretching exercises, functional electrical stimulation (FES), and mirror therapy are being used to treat this condition, with varying degrees of success. In an ideal situation, the aim of stroke rehabilitation is to recover the paralyzed limb to an extent that it is functionally useful. In this context, recent research is being conducted in neuroplasticity or motor-relearning. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain being able to adapt to changes in response to its external environment and stimulation. TES and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are the non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods that invoke this type of re-learning.[4],[5]
NIBS methods include TMS and TES since they non-invasively stimulate the cortex. These methods are still under research for medical applications and were first introduced to treat psychiatric conditions such as insomnia, chronic anxiety, mild depression and post stroke aphasia.[6],[7],[8] Recently, tDCS has also been tried on normal individuals and was shown to improve cognition, working memory, and performance.[9],[10],[11] These methods are now gaining importance in stroke rehabilitation because they provide motor relearning probably through cortical reorganization, which occurs because the neural continuity between the brain and the periphery is intact.[12]
This article attempts to review the stimulation protocols used for TES by various research groups and the results obtained. The first section begins with an introduction to non-invasive methods of brain stimulation followed by a brief summary on the history that led to the use of TES for stroke rehabilitation. Later sections deal with tDCS and tACS. The section on tDCS is further subdivided into tDCS alone and tDCS with adjuvant therapy. The tables give a list of the studies that have been carried out for neurorehabilitation, although it is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
| » Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation | |  |
NIBS is a broad term that includes all the different means of non-invasively stimulating the brain. The current NIBS approaches that are largely being researched in the field of psychiatry and stroke rehabilitation are tDCS, tACS, and TMS. A Cochrane review (2016) on these methods suggested that there was very little enhancement of motor activity when these techniques are used alone,[13],[14] but enhanced results were obtained when they were combined with another modality such as peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS).[15] Most of these techniques are still at the research level, not being used in normal clinical practice, and techniques such as tDCS and tACS are not clinically approved.
| » Transcranial Electrical Current Stimulation | | |
TES includes transcranial pulsed current stimulation, electrosleep therapy, transcutaneous cranial electrical stimulation, neuro-electric therapy, and so on, apart from tDCS and tACS.[16] A few other variations such as polarizing current, galvanic vestibular stimulation, and transcranial micro-polarization were tried out, but did not evolve to contribute much. Gustov Theodor Fritsch and Eduard Hitzig first introduced electrical stimulation of the brain in 1870 by stimulating the exposed cerebral cortex of a dog to identify the functions of various parts of the brain.[17] In the 1960s, animal experiments were conducted by Creutzfeldt et al., Bindman et al., and Debbane et al., and the results showed that stimulation could evoke neural activity in the brain, which had lasting effects.[18],[19],[20] There are a number of studies done using TES for treating psychiatric conditions and some evidence in literature to prove that TES produces lasting effects for learning, memory, post-stroke aphasia, depression, and so on.[21],[22],[23] Later, its efficacy for stroke rehabilitation was considered.
| » Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation | | |
tDCS is done by passing a weak direct current (DC) current, ranging between 0.5 and 2 mA, through two electrodes placed on the scalp. Saline-soaked sponge electrodes of sizes in the range of 35 cm2 are generally used. In the case of stroke rehabilitation, the anode is placed over the ipsilesional motor cortex and the cathode on contra-lesional supra-orbital region. Boggio et al., Vines et al., and Ang et al., have tried techniques where the cathode was placed over the contra-lesional motor cortex region as they believed that it would suppress activity from the contralateral side.[24],[25],[26] Following stimulation of the motor cortex for a duration ranging between 20 and 30 minutes, the subjects are asked to perform activities. During this period, the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs), motor responses, or additional stimulation is assessed.
Priori et al., and Nitsche and Paulussuccessfully applied tDCS on human motor cortex and they described the changes that took place when low-amplitude currents were passed over the skull through the motor cortex.[27],[28] Nitsche and Paulusshowed experimentally that tDCS enhances motor cortical excitability under anodal electrode and decreases cortical excitability under cathodal electrode.[28],[29] Schlaug et al., explained that when tDCS is applied, it alters the blood flow in the region, indicating that the underlying tissue is being excited.[30] Nitsche et al., and Vines et al., observed that the positions and size of the electrode largely determine the extent of motor relearning.[25],[31] Islam et al., showed that repeated tDCS on rat motor cortex showed increasing elevation of calcium levels, thereby giving rise to long-term potentiation (LTP) like plasticity.[32] The same is applicable to human brain since Nitsche and Paulus determined that the effects of motor cortex excitability could be extended and improved by a longer duration of stimulation and increased amplitude of stimulation.[28],[33]
As tDCS is non-invasive, painless, portable, and not known to cause any major side effects, exploratory research is being conducted on this front.[30] Johansson et al., in his study on brain plasticity and stroke rehabilitation, observed that activity-based regular therapy enhances the outcome of stroke rehabilitation.[34] In a study (2015), it was shown that anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) on the lesioned hemisphere improved shoulder abduction at lighter loads and had no improvement on increasing the load, but on the non-lesioned side, it had no improvement, whereas cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS) on the non-lesioned side significantly decreased shoulder abduction.[35]
Later, c-tDCS of the dominant motor cortex combined with a-tDCS of the non-dominant motor cortex showed an improvement in the motor performance.[25] A list of studies on tDCS for improvement of motor control and stroke rehabilitation is given in [Table 1]. The table lists the electrodes used, current, duration of stimulation, electrode montage, and the results obtained. Combinations with other modalities of therapy are now becoming common. tDCS is shown to enhance the effect of concomitant therapies by cortical reorganization. Various permutations and combinations of therapies are now being carried out to evoke motor relearning and provide lasting effects.[36]
| » Tdcs With Adjuvant Therapy | | |
Although significant improvement of motor functions by tDCS in stroke is yet to be reported, it provides various benefits such as being painless, easy to administer, and has no major side effects.[13] It also takes the intact neural connectivity into consideration, in contrast to any other mode of therapy, which is seen as the biggest advantage of tDCS. Further research was, therefore, directed toward using tDCS in combination with any other mode of therapy to obtain additional benefits. These combinations were again first introduced in psychiatry, where tDCS was used in combination with medication to provide enhanced effects.[37],[38] Similarly, for stroke rehabilitation, tDCS was combined with various therapies to provide enhanced results and some of these methods are discussed below.
Bi-hemispheric tDCS (anodal and cathodal stimulation) and constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) showed that tDCS improves gain, inter-hemispheric balance, and motor control because of reduced cortical activity of the intact side and increased cortical activity on the affected side.[39] A combination of tDCS and neuro-muscular electrical stimulation (NMES) showed improvement in gait abilities in a patient with hemiparesis. tDCS was applied on motor cortex and NMES on tibialis anterior to correct foot drop in the patient.[40] The effects of PNS combined with tDCS were studied on unilateral ischemic stroke patients for motor sequence performance with the stroke affecting radial and ulnar nerve stimulation. The results showed that there was an increase in performance accuracy rather than timing in these patients.[15] A similar study on patients in their first week of stroke showed that motor recovery was positively influenced in the group receiving tDCS with PNS and the effects lasted at least for a month.[41] Takeuchi et al., used a combination of tDCS and repetitional transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on a group of 27 participants with chronic sub-cortical stroke. The results showed that the group receiving both types of stimulation was able to perform bimanual tasks better than the control group.[42] Straudi et al., suggested that the combination of robot-assisted therapy with tDCS shows drastic improvement for a patient with chronic and subcortical stroke rather than acute and cortical stroke.[43] Cho and Cha conducted mirror therapy and tDCS on a group of 27 chronic stroke patients and the results showed that there was significant improvement of motor performance by the group receiving mirror therapy, compared with those whose vision was blocked from viewing the normal hand.[44] [Table 2] gives a list of the studies that used combination therapy. The vast number of studies conducted using tDCS with another modality showed significant results in motor improvement and further research is being directed at improving these combinations.
tDCS uses two large electrodes for stimulation, although the area to be stimulated is small. Therefore, a greater area of the brain is stimulated rather than what is required.[40] The need for focally delivering stimulation led to the introduction of high-definition transcranial direct current (HD-tDCS). In this variation, various configurations of an array of smaller electrodes are used. Research on HD-tDCS is being conducted for pain management, stimulation of the visual cortex, and psychiatry.[45],[46] Muthalib et al., were the first to study the effect of HD-tDCS on sequential finger movements by stimulating the human sensorimotor cortex.[47] HD-tDCS was recently introduced and research is being conducted in modelling smaller electrodes with different configurations. Currently, the areas being concentrated on are psychiatry, visual cortex, and auditory cortex.
| » Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation | | |
Studies on tACS are very few, and the acceptable current and frequency required to elicit cortical excitation and sustained effects are still under research. Studies applying tACS to regions other than the motor cortex show that tACS alters rhythmic neuronal activity and, therefore, find applications in visual and cognitive fields.[48] Kanai et al., applied stimulation on the visual cortex and observed a frequency-dependent (at 20 Hz) increase in excitability.[49] Zaehle et al., show that tACS enhances alpha oscillations and can, therefore, be used to treat neurological conditions that occur because of disruption of neuronal oscillations, such as Alzheimer's disease.[50]
The effect of tACS on the motor cortex was first studied by Antal et al., (2008) on healthy volunteers. Very low frequency stimulations between 1 and 45Hz were applied for 2–10 min over the motor cortex. The placement of electrodes was similar to that of tDCS, with the active electrode placed on the motor cortex and the reference electrode on contra-lateral supra-orbital region.[51] The results were not as favourable as those obtained with tDCS, but the authors believed that changing the stimulation parameters a bit might obtain comparable results. Zaghi et al., applied tACS on the motor cortex at a higher current density of 0.8 A/m2, 15 Hz for a longer duration of 20 min, which decreased cortical excitability and they concluded that tACS prevents the summation of subthreshold potentials both spatially and temporally.[52] Moliadze et al., applied tACS in the high-frequency range of 140 Hz to the motor cortex to produce excitability analogous to that obtained by tDCS.[53] Later, stimulation frequencies of 1, 2, and 5 kHz at an intensity of 1 mA were applied on the human motor cortex. Stimulation at 2 and 5 kHz produced lasting changes in the motor cortical excitability and this was attributed to modulation in the neuronal membrane activity.[54] A study conducted on normal human subjects used tACS at 1 mA peak-to-peak amplitude and frequencies within the recorded electroencephalography (EEG) range, that is, 5, 10, 20, and 40 Hz. A single TMS pulse was delivered and the amplitude of the resulting MEP was determined. There was an increase in the MEP amplitude when tACS was applied in the 20 Hz (β frequency) range indicating that some synchronization of activity could be taking place at the β frequency range.[55] Motor cortical activity is enhanced with a-tDCS, but tACS modifies neuronal oscillatory outputs to produce enhanced brain activity.
| » Discussion | | |
tDCS seems to be a promising method for rehabilitation, considering that its effects are long lasting. It has been shown in most of the studies that there is some improvement of motor function using tDCS. At the same time, it has also been shown from a few studies that motor control and co-ordination are improved by combining tDCS with any other form of rehabilitative therapy. tDCS makes use of two large electrodes of the range 35 cm2. This covers more than the required area to be stimulated. In a study carried out on pain perception, smaller sized electrodes were used, and improved results were obtained.[45] Similarly, smaller electrodes can be used to check for improved results in stroke rehabilitation. Fleming et al., showed that the placement of electrodes plays a major role in the effect of tDCS.[56] Contrary to the belief that suppressing activity in the contralesional hemisphere and enhancing activity in the ipsilesional hemisphere would provide added motor benefits, studies by Fleming et al., and O'Shea et al., disproved this theory.[56],[57] Anodal stimulation of contralesional cortex, which has not been done so far, will provide an insight into this theory.
A Cochrane review conducted on the effectiveness of tDCS for improvement of activities of daily living, whose results included studies that were conducted till February 2015, showed that there was very low evidence for adverse events and discontinuation of the procedure, therefore proving that it is a harmless technique.[13] Later, tDCS was used with adjunct therapy and improved results were obtained.[15] Safety is one of the major concerns of any medical device. Matsumoto and Ugawa concluded that the adverse effects of tACS and tDCS were mainly skin lesions and hypomania, which were transient symptoms and not persistent [Figure 1].[58]
| » Conclusion | | |
NIBS methods are gaining increasing importance in the field of stroke rehabilitation because they offer the advantage of cortical reorganisation and, therefore, enhance motor re-learning.[59],[60],[61],[62] tDCS and tACS are portable and have shown the least amount of side effects, but these devices are yet to be Food and Drug Administration-approved. Combinations of various therapies, using some form of brain stimulation, are becoming increasingly popular because of the underlying need to involve the brain and, therefore, improve performance. Brain stimulation is still at the research level, and a lot is left yet to be uncovered. HD-tDCS and tACS have recently been introduced and there are a very few groups involved in this research. HD-tDCS is slowly gaining popularity and could be a promising method in the field of stroke rehabilitation.
From this review, it is clear that tDCS is a very simple mode for improving motor cortex excitability and the effect can be enhanced by coupling it with adjuvant forms of rehabilitative therapies. The most significant results are obtained by a combination of tDCS and electrical stimulation or mirror therapy. HD-tDCS could be used to focally deliver stimulation, and currently studies on HD-tDCS are still basic and in-depth research is being carried out. A way forward will be to try combinations with electrical stimulation or mirror therapy to provide significant results.
Financial support and sponsorship
The author would like to thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST) for providing funding to carry out this research under the DST Women Scientists Scheme (WOS)-A scheme. (Ref No. SR/WOS-A/ET-69/2017).
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| » References | | |
| 1. | Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update. A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016;133:e-38-360.  |
| 2. | Thrift AG, Thayabaranathan T, Howard G, Howard VJ, Rothwell PM, Feigin VL, et al. Global stroke statistics. Int J Stroke 2017;12:13-32. |
| 3. | Banerjee TK, Das SK. Fifty years of stroke researches in India. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2016;19:1-8. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 4. | Pekna M, Pekny M, Nilsson M. Modulation of neural plasticity as a basis for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2012;43:2819-28. |
| 5. | Dimyan MA, Cohen LG. Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke. Nat Rev Neurol 2011;7:76-85. |
| 6. | Gomez E, Mikhail AR. Treatment of methadone withdrawal with cerebral electrotherapy (electrosleep). Br J Psychiatry 1979;134:111-3. |
| 7. | Rosenthal SH. Electrosleep: A double-blind clinical study. Biol Psychiatry 1972;4:179-85. |
| 8. | Sohn YH, Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurol Clin Pract 2000;56:421-e41. |
| 9. | Ruf SP, Fallgatter AJ, Plewnia C. Augmentation of working memory training by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Sci Rep 2017;7:876. |
| 10. | Martin DM, Liu R, Alonzo A, Green M, Player MH, Sachdev P, et al. Can transcranial direct current stimulation enhance outcomes from cognitive training? A randomized controlled trial in healthy participants. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2013;16:1927-36. |
| 11. | Martin DM, Liu R, Alonzo A, Green M, Loo CK. Use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to enhance cognitive training: Effect of timing of stimulation. Exp Brain Res 2014;232:3345-51. |
| 12. | Inukai Y, Saito K, Sasaki R, Tsuiki S, Miyaguchi S, Kojima S, et al. Comparison of three non-invasive transcranial electrical stimulation methods for increasing cortical excitability. Front Hum Neurosci 2016;10:1-7. |
| 13. | Elsner B, Kugler J, Pohl M, Mehrholz J. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;3:CD009645. |
| 14. | Hao Z, Wang D, Zeng Y, Liu M. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD008862. |
| 15. | Celnik P, Paik NJ, Vandermeeren Y, Dimyan M, Cohen LG. Effects of combined peripheral nerve stimulation and brain polarization on performance of a motor sequence task after chronic stroke. Stroke 2009;40:1764-71. |
| 16. | Guleyupoglu B, Schestatsky P, Edwards D, Fregni F, Bikson M. Classification of methods in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) and evolving strategy from historical approaches to contemporary innovations. J Neurosci Methods 2013;219:297-311. |
| 17. | Fritsch G, Hitzig E. Electric excitability of the cerebrum (Uber die elektrische Erregbarkeit des Grosshirns). Epilepsy Behav 2009;15:123-30. |
| 18. | Creutzfeldt OD, Fromm GH, Kapp H. Influence of transcortical d-c currents on cortical neuronal activity. Exp Neurol 1962;5:436-52. |
| 19. | Bindman LJ, Lipold OC, Redfearn JW. The action of brief polarizing currents on the cerebral cortex of the rat (1) during current flow and (2) in the production of long-lasting after-effects. J Physiol 1964;172:369-82. |
| 20. | Debanne D, Gahwiler BH, Thompson SM. Long-term synaptic plasticity between pairs of individual CA3 pyramidal cells in rat hippocampal slice cultures. J Physiol 1998;507(Pt 1):237-47. |
| 21. | Podda MV, Cocco S, Mastrodonato A, Fusco S, Leone L, Barbati SA, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation boosts synaptic plasticity and memory in mice via epigenetic regulation of Bdnf expression. Sci Rep 2016;6:22180. |
| 22. | Sebastian R, Saxena S, Tsapkini K, Faria AV, Long C, Wright A, et al. Cerebellar tDCS: A novel approach to augment language treatment post-stroke. Front Hum Neurosci 2017;10:1-8. |
| 23. | Loo CK, Alonzo A, Martin D, Mitchell PB, Galvez V, Sachdev P. Transcranial direct current stimulation for depression: 3-week, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2012;200:52-9. |
| 24. | Boggio PS, Nunes A, Rigonatti SP, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, Fregni F. Repeated sessions of noninvasive brain DC stimulation is associated with motor function improvement in stroke patients. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2007;25:123-9. |
| 25. | Vines BW, Cerruti C, Schlaug G. Dual-hemisphere tDCS facilitates greater improvements for healthy subjects' non-dominant hand compared to uni-hemisphere stimulation. BMC Neurosci 2008;9:103. |
| 26. | Ang KK, Guan C, Phua KS, Wang C, Zhao L, Teo WP, et al. Facilitating effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor imagery brain-computer interface with robotic feedback for stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96:S79-87. |
| 27. | Priori A, Berardelli A, Rona S, Accornero N, Manfredi M. Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp. Neuroreport 1998;9:2257-60. |
| 28. | Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol 2000;527(Pt 3):633-9. |
| 29. | Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 2001;57:1899-901. |
| 30. | Schlaug G, Renga V, Nair D. Transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke recovery. Stroke 2009;65:1571-6. |
| 31. | Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, Priori A, Lang N, Antal A, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimul 2008;1:206-23. |
| 32. | Islam N, Aftabuddin M, Moriwaki A, Hattori Y, Hori Y. Increase in the calcium level following anodal polarization in the rat brain. Brain Res 1995;684:206-8. |
| 33. | Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U, Schlitterlau A, Liebetanz D, Lang N, et al. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol 2003;553:293-301. |
| 34. | Johansson BB. Brain plasticity and stroke rehabilitation. The Willis lecture. Stroke 2000;31:223-30. |
| 35. | Yao J, Drogos J, Veltink F, Anderson C, Concha Urday Zaa J, Hanson LI, et al. The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on the expression of the flexor synergy in the paretic arm in chronic stroke is dependent on shoulder abduction loading. Front Hum Neurosci 2015;9:262. |
| 36. | Cunningham DA, Potter-Baker KA, Knutson JS, Sankarasubramanian V, Machado AG, Plow EB. Tailoring brain stimulation to the nature of rehabilitative therapies in stroke. A conceptual framework based on their unique mechanisms of recovery. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2015;26:759-74. |
| 37. | Boggio PS, Rigonatti SP, Ribeiro RB, Myczkowski ML, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial on the efficacy of cortical direct current stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2008;11:249-54. |
| 38. | Rigonatti SP, Boggio PS, Myczkowski ML, Otta E, Fiquer JT, Ribeiro RB, et al. Transcranial direct stimulation and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression. Eur Psychiatry 2008;23:74-6. |
| 39. | Bolognini N, Vallar G, Casati C, Latif LA, El-Nazer R, Williams J, et al. Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tdcs combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in poststroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011;25:819-29. |
| 40. | Satow T, Kawase T, Kitamura A, Kajitani Y, Yamaguchi T, Tanabe N, et al. A combination of transcranial direct current stimulation and neuromuscular electrical stimulation improves gait ability in a patient in chronic stage of stroke. Case Rep Neurol 2016;8:39-46. |
| 41. | Sattler V, Acket B, Raposo N, Albucher J-F, Thalamas C, Loubinoux I, et al. Anodal tDCS combined with radial nerve stimulation promotes hand motor recovery in the acute phase after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015;29:743-54. |
| 42. | Takeuchi N, Tada T, Matsuo Y, Ikoma K. Low-frequency repetitive TMS plus anodal transcranial DCS prevents transient decline in bimanual movement induced by contralesional inhibitory rTMS after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012;26:988-98. |
| 43. | Straudi S, Fregni F, Martinuzzi C, Pavarelli C, Salvioli S, Basaglia N. tDCS and robotics on upper limb stroke rehabilitation: Effect modification by stroke duration and type of stroke. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016;5068127. |
| 44. | Cho H-S, Cha H. Effect of mirror therapy with tDCS on functional recovery of the upper extremity of stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1045-7. |
| 45. | Borckardt JJ, Bikson M, Frohman H, Reeves ST, Datta A, Bansal V, et al. A pilot study of the tolerability and effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) on pain perception. J Pain 2012;13:112-20. |
| 46. | Zito GA, Senti T, Cazzoli D, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, Nyffeler T, et al. Cathodal HD-tDCS on the right V5 improves motion perception in humans. Front Behav Neurosci 2015;9:257. |
| 47. | Muthalib M, Besson P, Rothwell J, Ward T, Perrey S. Effects of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on bilateral sensorimotor cortex activation during sequential finger movements: An fNIRS study. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016;876:351-9. |
| 48. | Kanai R, Chaieb L, Antal A, Walsh V, Paulus W. Frequency-dependent electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. Curr Biol 2008;18:1839-43. |
| 49. | Kanai R, Paulus W, Walsh V. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) modulates cortical excitability as assessed by TMS-induced phosphene thresholds. Clin Neurophysiol 2010;121:1551-4. |
| 50. | Zaehle T, Rach S, CS Herrmann. Transcranial alternating current stimulation enhances individual alpha activity in human EEG. PLoS One 2010;5:1-7. |
| 51. | Antal A, Paulus W. Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:1-4. |
| 52. | Zaghi S, de Freitas Rezende L, LM de Oliveira, El-Nazer R, Menning S, Tadini L, et al. Inhibition of motor cortex excitability with 15Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Neurosci Lett 2010;479:211-4. |
| 53. | Moliadze V, Antal A, Paulus W. Boosting brain excitability by transcranial high frequency stimulation in the ripple range. J Physiol 2010;588:4891-904. |
| 54. | Chaieb L, Antal A, Paulus W. Transcranial alternating current stimulation in the low kHz range increases motor cortex excitability. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2011;29:167-75. |
| 55. | Feurra M, Bianco G, Santarnecchi E, Del Testa M, Rossi A, Rossi S. Frequency-dependent tuning of the human motor system induced by transcranial oscillatory potentials. J Neurosci 2011;31:12165-70. |
| 56. | Fleming MK, Rothwell JC, Sztriha L, Teo JT, Newham DJ. The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor sequence learning and upper limb function after stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2017;128:1389-98. |
| 57. | O'Shea J, Boudrias M-H, Stagg CJ, Bachtiar V, Kischka U, Blicher JU, et al. Predicting behavioural response to TDCS in chronic motor stroke. Neuroimage 2014;85:924-33. |
| 58. | Matsumoto H, Ugawa Y. Adverse events of tDCS and tACS: A review. Clin Neurophysiol Pract 2017;2:19-25. |
| 59. | Hummel F, Celnik P, Giraux P, Floel A, Wu WH, Gerloff C, et al. Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain 2005;128:490-9. |
| 60. | Hummel FC, Voller B, Celnik P, Floel A, Giraux P, Gerloff C, et al. Effects of brain polarization on reaction times and pinch force in chronic stroke. BMC Neurosci 2006;7:73. |
| 61. | Lindenberg R, Renga V, Zhu LL, Nair D, Schlaug G. Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Neurology 2010;75:2176-84. |
| 62. | Andrade SM, Batista LM, Nogueira LL, De Oliveira EA, De Carvalho AG, Lima SS, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation over premotor cortex improves motor function in severe stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Rehab Res Pract 2017;2017:6842549. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neurorehabilitation in Post-Stroke Patients |
|
| Kun-Peng Li, Jia-Jia Wu, Zong-Lei Zhou, Dong-Sheng Xu, Mou-Xiong Zheng, Xu-Yun Hua, Jian-Guang Xu | | Brain Sciences. 2023; 13(3): 451 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Temporal Interference (TI) Stimulation Boosts Functional Connectivity in Human Motor Cortex: A Comparison Study with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) |
|
| Zhiqiang Zhu, Yiwu Xiong, Yun Chen, Yong Jiang, Zhenyu Qian, Jianqiang Lu, Yu Liu, Jie Zhuang, Mou-Xiong Zheng | | Neural Plasticity. 2022; 2022: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Experience with Transcranial Electrical Stimulation in the Assessment of the Microvascular Bed by Contrast-Free Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Chronic Cerebral Ischemia |
|
| ?. S. Chukhontseva, ?. G. Morozova, ?. V. Borsukov | | Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine. 2022; 102(6): 369 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on post-stroke cognitive impairment |
|
| Yueying Wang, Ning Xu, Runfang Wang, Weiyi Zai | | Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2022; 16 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Driving Oscillatory Dynamics: Neuromodulation for Recovery After Stroke |
|
| Sven Storch, Montana Samantzis, Matilde Balbi | | Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2021; 15 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
The Effects of 10 Hz and 20 Hz tACS in Network Integration and Segregation in Chronic Stroke: A Graph Theoretical fMRI Study |
|
| Cheng Chen, Kai Yuan, Winnie Chiu-wing Chu, Raymond Kai-yu Tong | | Brain Sciences. 2021; 11(3): 377 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Breaking the ice to improve motor outcomes in patients with chronic stroke: a retrospective clinical study on neuromodulation plus robotics |
|
| Antonino Naro, Luana Billeri, Alfredo Manuli, Tina Balletta, Antonino Cannavņ, Simona Portaro, Paola Lauria, Fabrizio Ciappina, Rocco Salvatore Calabrņ | | Neurological Sciences. 2021; 42(7): 2785 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Electrical Stimulation |
|
| A. G. Poydasheva, I. S. Bakulin, D. Yu. Lagoda, E. L. Pavlova, N. A. Suponeva, M. A. Piradov | | Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology. 2021; 51(8): 1190 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A pilot double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial |
|
| R. De Icco, A. Putortģ, I. De Paoli, E. Ferrara, R. Cremascoli, M. Terzaghi, G. Toscano, M. Allena, D. Martinelli, G. Cosentino, V. Grillo, P. Colagiorgio, M. Versino, R. Manni, G. Sances, G. Sandrini, C. Tassorelli | | Clinical Neurophysiology. 2021; 132(1): 126 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Evidence of neuroplasticity with robotic hand exoskeleton for post-stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial |
|
| Neha Singh, Megha Saini, Nand Kumar, M. V. Padma Srivastava, Amit Mehndiratta | | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2021; 18(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Cognitive rehabilitation after stroke using non-pharmacological approaches |
|
| V.A. Borisova, E.V. Isakova, S.V. Kotov | | Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii im. S.S. Korsakova. 2021; 121(12): 26 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
A Survey on EEG Signal Processing Techniques and Machine Learning: Applications to the Neurofeedback of Autobiographical Memory Deficits in Schizophrenia |
|
| Miguel Lujįn, Marķa Jimeno, Jorge Mateo Sotos, Jorge Ricarte, Alejandro Borja | | Electronics. 2021; 10(23): 3037 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Can genetic polymorphisms predict response variability to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex? |
|
| Michael Pellegrini, Maryam Zoghi, Shapour Jaberzadeh, Gregor Thut | | European Journal of Neuroscience. 2021; 53(5): 1569 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
The effectiveness of electrical stimulation for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia |
|
| Wei-jun Han, Yu-ge Guo, Yun-qi Wang, Jin-wan Wang | | Medicine. 2020; 99(19): e19921 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
