Effects of somatosensory electrical stimulation on motor function and cortical oscillations

Adelyn P Tu-Chan, Nikhilesh Natraj, Jason Godlove, Gary Abrams, Karunesh Ganguly, Adelyn P Tu-Chan, Nikhilesh Natraj, Jason Godlove, Gary Abrams, Karunesh Ganguly

Abstract

Background: Few patients recover full hand dexterity after an acquired brain injury such as stroke. Repetitive somatosensory electrical stimulation (SES) is a promising method to promote recovery of hand function. However, studies using SES have largely focused on gross motor function; it remains unclear if it can modulate distal hand functions such as finger individuation.

Objective: The specific goal of this study was to monitor the effects of SES on individuation as well as on cortical oscillations measured using EEG, with the additional goal of identifying neurophysiological biomarkers.

Methods: Eight participants with a history of acquired brain injury and distal upper limb motor impairments received a single two-hour session of SES using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Pre- and post-intervention assessments consisted of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), finger fractionation, pinch force, and the modified Ashworth scale (MAS), along with resting-state EEG monitoring.

Results: SES was associated with significant improvements in ARAT, MAS and finger fractionation. Moreover, SES was associated with a decrease in low frequency (0.9-4 Hz delta) ipsilesional parietomotor EEG power. Interestingly, changes in ipsilesional motor theta (4.8-7.9 Hz) and alpha (8.8-11.7 Hz) power were significantly correlated with finger fractionation improvements when using a multivariate model.

Conclusions: We show the positive effects of SES on finger individuation and identify cortical oscillations that may be important electrophysiological biomarkers of individual responsiveness to SES. These biomarkers can be potential targets when customizing SES parameters to individuals with hand dexterity deficits.

Trial registration: NCT03176550; retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Brain injury; Electroencephalography; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation; Upper extremity.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of California San Francisco committee for human research protection approved the study, and all participants provided written consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

KG, NN, and AT have submitted a provisional patent application that is based partially on the results reported here. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests to report.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Schematic representation of the method used for calculating the FCI. The participant is instructed to flex only the index finger as much as possible without flexing the other digits. b FCI is defined mathematically as the angle traversed by the middle finger (digit A) divided by the angle tranversed by the index finger (digit B) relative to the horizontal starting position. c Statistically significant change in mean fractionation from baseline to immediately after peripheral nerve stimulation. Fractionation improvement is indicated by a decrease in finger coupling index (FCI)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of percentage change in mean resting state EEG power across the eight subjects, pre to post intervention, within the (a) delta frequency band and (b) theta frequency band with head plots depicting 1/coefficient of variation (mean/standard deviation) of group level percentage changes. Star sign represents a significant change in group level resting state EEG power from zero. c Magnitude of the coefficients of the multivariate robust ridge model from regressing mean FCI changes to mean power changes, pre to post intervention, with the star sign depicting coefficients whose absolute magnitude were greater than 95% of those produced by random data permutation. M: electrodes over Motor cortex; P: electrodes over Parietal cortex

References

    1. Brainin M, Zorowitz RD. Advances in stroke: recovery and rehabilitation. Stroke. 2013;44(2):311–313. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000342.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(9):2181–2186. doi: 10.1161/.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):111–121. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305457.
    1. Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, Langhorne P, Mead GE, Mehrholz J, van Wijck F. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:CD010820.
    1. Ikuno K, Kawaguchi S, Kitabeppu S, Kitaura M, Tokuhisa K, Morimoto S, Matsuo A, Shomoto K. Effects of peripheral sensory nerve stimulation plus task-oriented training on upper extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: a pilot randomized crossover trial. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(11):999–1009. doi: 10.1177/0269215512441476.
    1. Hamdy S, Rothwell JC, Aziz Q, Singh KD, Thompson DG. Long-term reorganization of human motor cortex driven by short-term sensory stimulation. Nat Neurosci. 1998;1(1):64–68. doi: 10.1038/264.
    1. Kaelin-Lang A, Luft AR, Sawaki L, Burstein AH, Sohn YH, Cohen LG. Modulation of human corticomotor excitability by somatosensory input. J Physiol. 2002;540(Pt 2):623–633. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2001.012801.
    1. CW W, van Gelderen P, Hanakawa T, Yaseen Z, Cohen LG. Enduring representational plasticity after somatosensory stimulation. NeuroImage. 2005;27(4):872–884. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.055.
    1. Ikuno KMA, Shomoto K. Sensory electrical stimulation for recovery of hand and arm function in stroke patients: a review of the literature. J Novel Physiotherapies. 2012;S1:007.
    1. Celnik P, Hummel F, Harris-Love M, Wolk R, Cohen LG. Somatosensory stimulation enhances the effects of training functional hand tasks in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(11):1369–1376. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.001.
    1. Conforto AB, Cohen LG, Dos Santos RL, Scaff M, Marie SK. Effects of somatosensory stimulation on motor function in chronic cortico-subcortical strokes. J Neurol. 2007;254(3):333–339. doi: 10.1007/s00415-006-0364-z.
    1. Klaiput A, Kitisomprayoonkul W. Increased pinch strength in acute and subacute stroke patients after simultaneous median and ulnar sensory stimulation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):351–356. doi: 10.1177/1545968308324227.
    1. Koesler IB, Dafotakis M, Ameli M, Fink GR, Nowak DA. Electrical somatosensory stimulation improves movement kinematics of the affected hand following stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009;80(6):614–619. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2008.161117.
    1. Sullivan JE, Hurley D, Hedman LD. Afferent stimulation provided by glove electrode during task-specific arm exercise following stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(11):1010–1020. doi: 10.1177/0269215512442915.
    1. CW W, Seo HJ, Cohen LG. Influence of electric somatosensory stimulation on paretic-hand function in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(3):351–357. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.019.
    1. Schieber MH, Lang CE, Reilly KT, McNulty P, Sirigu A. Selective activation of human finger muscles after stroke or amputation. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009;629:559–575. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_30.
    1. Lum PS, Mulroy S, Amdur RL, Requejo P, Prilutsky BI, Dromerick AW. Gains in upper extremity function after stroke via recovery or compensation: potential differential effects on amount of real-world limb use. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(4):237–253. doi: 10.1310/tsr1604-237.
    1. CY W, Chen CL, Tang SF, Lin KC, Huang YY. Kinematic and clinical analyses of upper-extremity movements after constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(8):964–970. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.012.
    1. Dos Santos-Fontes RL, Ferreiro de Andrade KN, Sterr A, Conforto AB:Home-based nerve stimulation to enhance effects of motor training in patients in the chronic phase after stroke: a proof-of-principle study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013, 27(6):483–490.
    1. Burke Quinlan E, Dodakian L, See J, McKenzie A, Le V, Wojnowicz M, Shahbaba B, Cramer SC. Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann Neurol. 2015;77(1):132–145. doi: 10.1002/ana.24309.
    1. Milot MH, Spencer SJ, Chan V, Allington JP, Klein J, Chou C, Pearson-Fuhrhop K, Bobrow JE, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Cramer SC. Corticospinal excitability as a predictor of functional gains at the affected upper limb following robotic training in chronic stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(9):819–827. doi: 10.1177/1545968314527351.
    1. Burke E, Cramer SC. Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013;13(2):329. doi: 10.1007/s11910-012-0329-9.
    1. Wu J, Quinlan EB, Dodakian L, McKenzie A, Kathuria N, Zhou RJ, Augsburger R, See J, Le VH, Srinivasan R, et al. Connectivity measures are robust biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity after stroke. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 8):2359–2369. doi: 10.1093/brain/awv156.
    1. Simis M, Doruk D, Imamura M, Anghinah R, Morales-Quezada L, Fregni F, Battistella LR. Neurophysiologic predictors of motor function in stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015;34(1):45–54.
    1. Kimura J. Principles and practice. 3. Oxford England; New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle.
    1. Chernick MR, LaBudde RA. An introduction to bootstrap methods with applications to R. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley; 2011.
    1. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004;134(1):9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.
    1. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J, Franklin J. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction. Math Intell. 2005;27(2):83–85.
    1. Fox J. Robust regression. An R and S-Plus companion to applied regression. 2002;
    1. Cule E, Vineis P, De Iorio M. Significance testing in ridge regression for genetic data. BMC bioinformatics. 2011;12(1):372. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-372.
    1. Conforto AB, Ferreiro KN, Tomasi C, Dos Santos RL, Moreira VL, Marie SK, Baltieri SC, Scaff M, Cohen LG. Effects of somatosensory stimulation on motor function after subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(3):263–272. doi: 10.1177/1545968309349946.
    1. Carrico C, Chelette KC, 2nd, Westgate PM, Powell E, Nichols L, Fleischer A, Sawaki L: Nerve stimulation enhances task-oriented training in chronic, severe motor deficit after stroke: a randomized trial. Stroke 2016, 47(7):1879–1884.
    1. Carrico C, Chelette KC, 2nd, Westgate PM, Salmon-Powell E, Nichols L, Sawaki L: Randomized trial of peripheral nerve stimulation to enhance modified constraint-induced therapy after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2016, 95(6):397–406.
    1. Allison T, McCarthy G, Wood CC, Darcey TM, Spencer DD, Williamson PD. Human cortical potentials evoked by stimulation of the median nerve. I. Cytoarchitectonic areas generating short-latency activity. J Neurophysiol. 1989;62(3):694–710.
    1. Blickenstorfer A, Kleiser R, Keller T, Keisker B, Meyer M, Riener R, Kollias S. Cortical and subcortical correlates of functional electrical stimulation of wrist extensor and flexor muscles revealed by fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30(3):963–975. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20559.
    1. Forss N, Hari R, Salmelin R, Ahonen A, Hamalainen M, Kajola M, Knuutila J, Simola J. Activation of the human posterior parietal cortex by median nerve stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 1994;99(2):309–315. doi: 10.1007/BF00239597.
    1. Golaszewski SM, Siedentopf CM, Koppelstaetter F, Rhomberg P, Guendisch GM, Schlager A, Gallasch E, Eisner W, Felber SR, Mottaghy FM. Modulatory effects on human sensorimotor cortex by whole-hand afferent electrical stimulation. Neurology. 2004;62(12):2262–2269. doi: 10.1212/WNL.62.12.2262.
    1. Iftime-Nielsen SD, Christensen MS, Vingborg RJ, Sinkjaer T, Roepstorff A, Grey MJ. Interaction of electrical stimulation and voluntary hand movement in SII and the cerebellum during simulated therapeutic functional electrical stimulation in healthy adults. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33(1):40–49. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21191.
    1. Donoghue JP, Sanes JN. Motor areas of the cerebral cortex. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;11(4):382–396.
    1. Friedman DP, Jones EG. Thalamic input to areas 3a and 2 in monkeys. J Neurophysiol. 1981;45(1):59–85.
    1. Jones EG. The nature of the afferent pathways conveying short-latency inputs to primate motor cortex. Adv Neurol. 1983;39:263–285.
    1. Kaneko T, Caria MA, Asanuma H. Information processing within the motor cortex. II. Intracortical connections between neurons receiving somatosensory cortical input and motor output neurons of the cortex. J Comp Neurol. 1994;345(2):172–184. doi: 10.1002/cne.903450203.
    1. Veldman MP, Zijdewind I, Solnik S, Maffiuletti NA, Berghuis KM, Javet M, Negyesi J, Hortobagyi T. Direct and crossed effects of somatosensory electrical stimulation on motor learning and neuronal plasticity in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015;115(12):2505–2519. doi: 10.1007/s00421-015-3248-z.
    1. Sasaki R, Kotan S, Nakagawa M, Miyaguchi S, Kojima S, Saito K, Inukai Y, Onishi H. Presence and absence of muscle contraction elicited by peripheral nerve electrical stimulation differentially modulate primary motor cortex excitability. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:146. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00146.
    1. Tinazzi M, Zarattini S, Valeriani M, Romito S, Farina S, Moretto G, Smania N, Fiaschi A, Abbruzzese G. Long-lasting modulation of human motor cortex following prolonged transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of forearm muscles: evidence of reciprocal inhibition and facilitation. Exp Brain Res. 2005;161(4):457–464. doi: 10.1007/s00221-004-2091-y.
    1. Hensel S, Rockstroh B, Berg P, Elbert T, Schönle PW. Left-hemispheric abnormal EEG activity in relation to impairment and recovery in aphasic patients. Psychophysiology. 2004;41(3):394–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00164x.
    1. Finnigan S, Wong A, Read S. Defining abnormal slow EEG activity in acute ischaemic stroke: Delta/alpha ratio as an optimal QEEG index. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1452–1459. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.07.014.
    1. Neuper C, Wortz M, Pfurtscheller G. ERD/ERS patterns reflecting sensorimotor activation and deactivation. Prog Brain Res. 2006;159:211–222. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(06)59014-4.
    1. Spironelli C, Angrilli A. EEG delta band as a marker of brain damage in aphasic patients after recovery of language. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(4):988–994. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.019.
    1. Obrig H, Neufang M, Wenzel R, Kohl M, Steinbrink J, Einhäupl K, Villringer A. Spontaneous low frequency oscillations of cerebral hemodynamics and metabolism in human adults. NeuroImage. 2000;12(6):623–639. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0657.
    1. Rollnik JD. May clinical neurophysiology help to predict the recovery of neurological early rehabilitation patients? BMC Neurol. 2015;15:239. doi: 10.1186/s12883-015-0496-9.
    1. Pfurtscheller G, Da Silva FL. Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;110(11):1842–1857. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00141-8.
    1. Gulati T, Won SJ, Ramanathan DS, Wong CC, Bodepudi A, Swanson RA, Ganguly K. Robust neuroprosthetic control from the stroke perilesional cortex. J Neurosci. 2015;35(22):8653–8661. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5007-14.2015.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe