Dual-hemisphere tDCS facilitates greater improvements for healthy subjects' non-dominant hand compared to uni-hemisphere stimulation

Bradley W Vines, Carlo Cerruti, Gottfried Schlaug, Bradley W Vines, Carlo Cerruti, Gottfried Schlaug

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive technique that has been found to modulate the excitability of neurons in the brain. The polarity of the current applied to the scalp determines the effects of tDCS on the underlying tissue: anodal tDCS increases excitability, whereas cathodal tDCS decreases excitability. Research has shown that applying anodal tDCS to the non-dominant motor cortex can improve motor performance for the non-dominant hand, presumably by means of changes in synaptic plasticity between neurons. Our previous studies also suggest that applying cathodal tDCS over the dominant motor cortex can improve performance for the non-dominant hand; this effect may result from modulating inhibitory projections (interhemispheric inhibition) between the motor cortices of the two hemispheres. We hypothesized that stimultaneously applying cathodal tDCS over the dominant motor cortex and anodal tDCS over the non-dominant motor cortex would have a greater effect on finger sequence performance for the non-dominant hand, compared to stimulating only the non-dominant motor cortex. Sixteen right-handed participants underwent three stimulation conditions: 1) dual-hemisphere - with anodal tDCS over the non-dominant motor cortex, and cathodal tDCS over the dominant motor cortex, 2) uni-hemisphere - with anodal tDCS over the non-dominant motor cortex, and 3) sham tDCS. Participants performed a finger-sequencing task with the non-dominant hand before and after each stimulation. The dependent variable was the percentage of change in performance, comparing pre- and post-tDCS scores.

Results: A repeated measures ANOVA yielded a significant effect of tDCS condition (F(2,30) = 4.468, p = .037). Post-hoc analyses revealed that dual-hemisphere stimulation improved performance significantly more than both uni-hemisphere (p = .021) and sham stimulation (p = .041).

Conclusion: We propose that simultaneously applying cathodal tDCS over the dominant motor cortex and anodal tDCS over the non-dominant motor cortex produced an additive effect, which facilitated motor performance in the non-dominant hand. These findings are relevant to motor skill learning and to research studies of motor recovery after stroke.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effects of three tDCS stimulation conditions on finger-sequence performance. The mean percentage of change in the total number of correct sequential keystrokes across all subjects (N = 16) for sham, uni-hemisphere, and dual-hemisphere tDCS. Error bars signify the standard error of the mean (SEM). Dual-hemisphere tDCS improved finger-sequence coordination for the left hand significantly more than uni-hemisphere or sham stimulation.

References

    1. Vines BW, Schnider NM, Schlaug G. Testing for causality with transcranial direct current stimulation: pitch memory and the left supramarginal gyrus. Neuroreport. 2006;17:1047–1050. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000223396.05070.a2.
    1. Ragert P, Vandermeeren Y, Camus M, Cohen LG. Improvement of spatial acuity by transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119:805–811. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.12.001.
    1. Flöel A, Rösser N, Michka O, Knecht S, Breitenstein C. Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008;69:32–40.
    1. Vines BW, Nair DG, Schlaug G. Modulating activity in the motor cortex affects performance for the two hands differently depending upon which hemisphere is stimulated. Eur J Neurosci. 2008;28:1667–1673. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06459.x.
    1. Hummel F, Cohen LG. Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 2006;5:708–712. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70525-7.
    1. Schlaug G, Renga V, Nair DG. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Stroke Recovery. Arch Neurol. 2008;65:1–7.
    1. Liebetanz D, Nitsche MA, Tergau F, Paulus W. Pharmacological approach to the mechanisms of transcranial DC-stimulation-induced after-effects of human motor cortex excitability. Brain. 2002;125:2238–2247. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf238.
    1. Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527:633–639. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x.
    1. Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U, Schlitterlau A, Liebetanz D, Lang N, Henning S, Tergau F, Paulus W. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial DC stimulation. J Physiol-London. 2003;553:293–301. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916.
    1. Boggio PS, Castro LO, Savagim EA, Braite R, Cruz VC, Rocha RR, Rigonatti SP, Silva MT, Fregni F. Enhancement of non-dominant hand motor function by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurosci Let. 2006;404:232–236. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.05.051.
    1. Nitsche MA, Schauenburg A, Lang N, Liebetanz D, Exner C, Paulus W, Tergau F. Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J Cog Neurosci. 2003;15:619–626. doi: 10.1162/089892903321662994.
    1. Vines BW, Nair DG, Schlaug G. Contralateral and ipsilateral motor effects after transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroreport. 2006;17:671–674. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200604240-00023.
    1. Hesse S, Werner C, Schonhardt EM, Bardeleben A, Jenrich W, Kirker SG. Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in subacute stroke patients: A pilot study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;25:9–15.
    1. Hummel F, Celnik P, Giraux P, Floel A, Wu WH, Gerloff C, Cohen LG. Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain. 2005;128:490–499. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh369.
    1. Nair DG, Renga V, Hamelin S, Pascual-Leone A, Schlaug G. Improving motor function in chronic stroke patients using simultaneous occupational therapy and tDCS. Stroke. 2008;39:542. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.496935.
    1. Ferbert A, Priori A, Rothwell JC, Day BL, Colebatch JG, Marsden CD. Interhemispheric inhibition of the human motor cortex. J Physiol. 1992;453:525–546.
    1. Gorsler A, Bäumer T, Weiller C, Münchau A, Liepert J. Interhemispheric effects of high and low frequency rTMS in healthy humans. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;114:1800–1807. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00157-3.
    1. Netz J, Ziemann U, Hömberg V. Hemispheric asymmetry of transcallosal inhibition in man. Exp Brain Res. 1995;104:527–533. doi: 10.1007/BF00231987.
    1. Wassermann EM, Wedegaertner FR, Ziemann U, George MS, Chen R. Crossed reduction of human motor cortex excitability by 1-Hz transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurosci Lett. 1998;250:141–144. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3940(98)00437-6.
    1. Fregni F, Boggio PS, Mansur CG, Wagner T, Ferreira MJ, Lima MC, Rigonatti SP, Marcolin MA, Freedman SD, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neuroreport. 2005;16:1551–1555. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000177010.44602.5e.
    1. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.
    1. Homan RW, Herman J, Purdy P. Cerebral location of international 10–20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalography and Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;66:376–382. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(87)90206-9.
    1. Okamoto M, Dan H, Sakamoto K, Takeo K, Shimizu K, Kohno S, Oda I, Isobe S, Suzuki T, Kohyama K, Dan I. Three-dimensional probabilistic anatomical cranio-cerebral correlation via the international 10–20 system oriented for transcranial functional brain mapping. Neuroimage. 2004;21:99–111. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.026.
    1. Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): A tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:845–850. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.003.
    1. Miranda PC, Mikhail L, Mark H. Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:1623–1629. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.04.009.
    1. Okano H, Hirano T, Balaban E. Learning and memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:12403–12404. doi: 10.1073/pnas.210381897.
    1. Garry MI, Kamen G, Nordstrom MA. Hemispheric differences in the relationship between corticomotor excitability changes following a fine-motor task and motor learning. J Neurophysiol. 2004;91:1570–1578. doi: 10.1152/jn.00595.2003.
    1. Koeneke S, Lutz K, Herwig U, Ziemann U, Jancke L. Extensive training of elementary finger tapping movements changes the pattern of motor cortex excitability. Exp Brain Res. 2006;174:199–209. doi: 10.1007/s00221-006-0440-8.
    1. Kobayashi M, Hutchinson S, Schlaug G, Pascual-Leone A. Ipsilateral motor cortex activation on functional magnetic resonance imaging during unilateral hand movements is related to interhemispheric interactions. NeuroImage. 2004;20:2259–2270. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00220-9.
    1. Wassermann EM, Fuhr P, Cohen LG, Hallett M. Effects of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on ipsilateral muscles. Neurology. 1991;41:1795–1799.
    1. Catalan MJ, Honda M, Weeks RA, Cohen LG, Hallett M. The functional neuroanatomy of simple and complex sequential finger movements: a PET study. Brain. 1998;121:253–264. doi: 10.1093/brain/121.2.253.
    1. Kansaku K, Muraki S, Umeyama S, Nishimori Y, Kochiyama T, Yamane S, Kitazawa S. Cortical activity in multiple motor areas during sequential finger movements: An application of independent component analysis. NeuroImage. 2005;28:669–681. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.022.
    1. Jäncke L, Steinmetz H, Benilow S, Ziemann U. Slowing fastest finger movements of the dominant hand with low-frequency rTMS of the hand area of the primary motor cortex. Exp Brain Res. 2004;155:196–203. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1719-7.
    1. Levit-Binnun N, Handzy NZ, Peled A, Modai I, Moses E. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in a finger-tapping task separates motor from timing mechanisms and induces frequency doubling. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007;19:721–733. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.721.
    1. Muellbacher W, Ziemann U, Boroojerdi B, Hallett M. Effects of low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor excitability and basic motor behavior. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;111:1002–1007. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00284-4.
    1. Robertson EM, Press DZ, Pascual-Leone A. Off-line learning and the primary motor cortex. J Neurosci. 2005;25:6372–6378. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1851-05.2005.
    1. Mansur CG, Fregni F, Boggio PS, Riberto M, Gallucci-Neto J, Santos CM, Wagner T, Rigonatti SP, Marcolin MA, Pascual-Leone A. A sham stimulation-controlled trial of rTMS of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neurology. 2005;64:1802–1804. doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000161839.38079.92.
    1. Takeuchi N, Chuma T, Matsuo Y, Watanabe I, Ikoma K. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of contralesional primary motor cortex improves hand function after stroke. Stroke. 2005;36:2681–2686. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000189658.51972.34.
    1. Talelli P, Rothwell J. Does brain stimulation after stroke have a future? Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:543–550. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32801080d1.
    1. Nitsche MA, Doemkes S, Karaköse T, Antal A, Liebetanz D, Lang N, Tergau F, Paulus W. Shaping the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol. 2007;97:3109–3117. doi: 10.1152/jn.01312.2006.
    1. Rau A, Grossheinrich N, Palm U, Pogarell O, Padberg F. Transcranial and deep brain stimulation approaches as treatment for depression. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2007;38:105–115.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe